This thread is now about China

[GabonX]

BBS took it upon himself to make this thread about China.

This thread is now about China.

show

[BigBallinStalin]

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt" eugenics


It may take some more effort, but omg the google conspiracy has been resolved.


Next unsolved conspiracy case, please.

[john9blue]

google will search for words similar in meaning to the ones you typed if you don't use quotes to denote literal words (as BBS has done).

there are a lot of good conspiracy theories, but this isn't one of them

[AAFitz]

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt" eugenics


It may take some more effort, but omg the google conspiracy has been resolved.


Next unsolved conspiracy case, please.

The Magic Bullet....


Is it really a healthier way to eat?

[PLAYER57832]

After all, who cares if its Theodore or Franklin Roosevelt.. as long as other companies websites are not being copied, all is good.
[sarcasm, in case anyone did not catch that-- don't want another "so you really think China is better" set of posts]

[Gillipig]

After all, who cares if its Theodore or Franklin Roosevelt.. as long as other companies websites are not being copied, all is good.
[sarcasm, in case anyone did not catch that-- don't want another "so you really think China is better" set of posts]

So you think China is better you bastard?

[PLAYER57832]

After all, who cares if its Theodore or Franklin Roosevelt.. as long as other companies websites are not being copied, all is good.
[sarcasm, in case anyone did not catch that-- don't want another "so you really think China is better" set of posts]

So you think China is better you bastard?

LOL.. I think that a command system makes some changes easier. In a few cases, China has made some responsible decisions and choices, particularly when it comes to energy use and production. It doesn't outweigh their poor record on many other fronts. (and even their good choices are limited to high profile areas, it seems).

Flag waving American here, I am afraid .

[BigBallinStalin]

Whoa, what? How does China's 'command system' yield particularly responsible decisions in regard to energy use and production?

[_sabotage_]

China's 2008 bailout was put in place within a month and it provided for infrastructure projects. The US took 5 months and then gave the money to the banks.

[BigBallinStalin]

China's 2008 bailout was put in place within a month and it provided for infrastructure projects. The US took 5 months and then gave the money to the banks.

Meanwhile, China deals with an overabundance of hardly used infrastructure as well as newly built cities which are hardly occupied. Furthermore, China was dealing with inflation rates of over 6% per year--and those are government-reported. I'm sure we can all trust the Chinese Government to be very honest! I'm not sure how such waste and reduction of real wealth for the Chinese consumers is praiseworthy.

Besides, why does speed matter? ARPA 2009 was introduced in January 2009 and signed by Obama about five weeks later. Recall the complete lack of oversight and the numerous pork-barrel provisions were inserted within that act, and then I'd imagine the similar Chinese stimulus package was even worse in terms of waste and corruption, yet its speed somehow makes it praiseworthy? (If you want to mention TARP, it occurred roughly around the China's stimulus package).

Finally, look at the wiki article on ARPA 2009, and you'll see that the money did not only go to banks but also infrastructure projects, education, and all that jazz. The money which China spent didn't only go to infrastructure projects. Much of it gets funneled through state-owned enterprises (e.g. Banks) too, so again praise for China's command system seems completely mistaken. (note: China's fiscal policy was addressing a completely different problem from the US fiscal policy, so it's no surprise that TARP went predominantly to banks, and China's stimulus spending was used mainly on infrastructure and provincial projects.

I don't see how China's command system is praiseworthy here. Speed alone doesn't matter, and we should be especially skeptical when politicians are involved. Besides, read the wiki. It's not like that $500+ bn is released immediately.

Yada yada yada.

[_sabotage_]

In a crisis, there is a high demand for reassurance and direction. China supplied it quickly.

What is this to do with inflation? Ron Paul also doesn't trust government figures on inflation in the US.

I don't need to read the wiki, because i was there and active in business, property and stocks prior to and following the economic tsunami. It's weird that it was given an Asian name when it hit Europe and North America harder.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's the original question:

How does China's 'command system' yield particularly responsible decisions in regard to energy use and production?

You then provide a statement which is erroneous in several places. Afterward, you follow-up with an insistence on China's rapid response, and you refuse to verify your own position when given contrary information. There's nothing wrong with refreshing your memory, but why not take the chance to refresh it and correct for personal, cognitive bias?

Again, why does only speed matter--especially when it is wasteful, enables corruption, and doesn't really help most Chinese? Why do you think that such expedient political action is responsible--given its significant costs?

[pimpdave]

[ManBungalow]

If you put quotation marks around a word in the google search it produces results based on that exact word, with no substitution.

eg.

Gabonx google entry:

fdr eugenics

Bungalow google entry:

"fdr" eugenics

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbo=d&ou ... 66&bih=640

I'm sure you'll still get totally irrelevant results using the quotation method (eg. it might link you to the Fedora Department Roswell because "FDR" is on their page, which wouldn't occur when google substitutes Roosevelt in).

[_sabotage_]

BBS: Almost everything you posted was false or misleading and you suggest my reply was biased? Take your first statement regarding an overabundance in underused infrastructure, are you talking about the Great Leap Forward here?

Your point is all over the board. A stimulus package isn't necessarily provided to shore up or relieve actually burden that people face but to restore faith in people over the economy. You say that China's stimulus package was given for a different reason, but I can assure you it had the same intent as that of ARPA or whatever, which is to restore confidence to the average investor. I can also remember that the package was a huge part of the debates between McCain and Obama, but it was done quickly and quietly in China. You say there was corruption involved, and I'm sure there was.

I think we have two different points on the package, it's intent and it's effectiveness. For me, it's intent was to restore confidence while being productive. You obfuscate but eventually, hidden deep within your post do seem to acknowledge that China's package went towards infrastructure, but say it doesn't need it, it is corrupt with it and it was because there was a different intent.

But two things and this is key to my belief in government:

1. No one in China looks back at it and says; wtf was the government doing? They just robbed us and bailed out the other guys that robbed us. That is, they maintained the trust or perhaps built trust in some minds.

2. They dealt with the crisis, a situation that average businesses can't deal with on such a grand scale.

The fact that they promised the stimulus quickly doesn't have anything to do with how it was meted out.

If you care for a further example of a command system acting quickly, take the Sichuan earthquake. The government mobilized the army and hundreds of thousands of rescue workers overnight. Meanwhile FEMA couldn't get water to the people in New Orleans for how many days? It's basically the same situation, but with human casualties instead of financial ones.

Meanwhile, people in the States are stilled pissed that we bailed out the banks, their houses are still gone, the economy still sucks.

[BigBallinStalin]

Have fun being general about this. I'm finished.

I could say the same about TARP, but you'll insist that somehow that produced different results than the Chinese policy--as according to your crystal ball on investor confidence and public opinion. I'm not interested.

[_sabotage_]

I see. Sorry for being obtuse, but your specific response is that the ability to act quickly in a crisis is not a benefit of a command system? A command system has no benefits and personal observation has no merit?

[GabonX]

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt" eugenics


It may take some more effort, but omg the google conspiracy has been resolved.


Next unsolved conspiracy case, please.

I'm tired of you stalking me in every thread I make to try and nitpick for flaws that aren't there. In the last one you didn't bother reading the material and then claimed I failed to comprehend it. Here you're getting snarky saying that my conspiracy theory has been resolved. The obvious issue is that I never said there was a conspiracy. Interesting and conspiracy! are not the same thing.

I found it interesting that Google will substitute related terms after reading an article earlier in the day about how their search criteria is largely unknown to people outside the company. I linked to the article and used an example of how their criteria for search can be flawed. At the same time I thought this thread might spark a conversation about progressive eugenics history which is probably a conversation worth having...

Instead you butt into my thread, put words in my mouth as you frequently do, and start talking about China for some reason. I've seen you argue for things I support and then argue with me if I make the same points in another conversation. You seemingly follow me in every conversation I host or take part in and try to derail it, so I'm reporting you for trolling.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt" eugenics


It may take some more effort, but omg the google conspiracy has been resolved.


Next unsolved conspiracy case, please.

I'm tired of you stalking me in every thread I make to try and nitpick for flaws that aren't there. In the last one you didn't bother reading the material and then claimed I failed to comprehend it. Here you're getting snarky saying that my conspiracy theory has been resolved. The obvious issue is that I never said there was a conspiracy. Interesting and conspiracy! are not the same thing.

I found it interesting that Google will substitute related terms after reading an article earlier in the day about how their search criteria is largely unknown to people outside the company. I linked to the article and used an example of how their criteria for search can be flawed. At the same time I thought this thread might spark a conversation about progressive eugenics history which is probably a conversation worth having...

Instead you butt into my thread, put words in my mouth as you frequently do, and start talking about China for some reason. I've seen you argue for things I support and then argue with me if I make the same points in another conversation. You seemingly follow me in every conversation I host or take part in and try to derail it, so I'm reporting you for trolling.

(1) I've pretty much ignored you in your other threads, so obviously I'm not stalking you. Recall that I've been out of action for about... a month or two? Since this is the case, your claims on my stalking you are ridiculous--yet flattering.

(2) I just had to notify the public that your OP was short-sighted. It should go without saying that you don't know how to use Google, but why not take the opportunity to joke about your OP while solving the mystery? If joking isn't allowed, and if you can't laugh at your own ridiculous OP, then neither I nor the mods can help you with your personal issues.

(3) If you wish to talk about eugenics and FDR, then why insert this funny insinuation about Google algorithms and Google's twisting 'FDR eugenics' into 'Teddy Roosevelt eugenics'? If you post silly stuff, then don't be surprised when people laugh at you.

If you wish to talk about eugenics (*sigh* really?), then don't run on some tangent about Google. Be clearer next time.


Hope that helps! See ya around, GabonX!

[BigBallinStalin]

I see. Sorry for being obtuse, but your specific response is that the ability to act quickly in a crisis is not a benefit of a command system? A command system has no benefits and personal observation has no merit?

I'm just saying that the benefits of a command system like China's do not offset the costs, and failing to read other sources other than one's own interpretation does not correct for cognitive bias. My concern is that you see what you want to see, and you evidently downplay the costs of China's quick implementation of fiscal policy. I've been highlighting such costs but to little avail. Therefore, if I have to deal with this, then I'm really not interested in discussing this with you. I don't mean to be rude, but it wouldn't be worth my time.

If we wanted to really get into this, we would have to compare the performance of 'command systems' in regard to responding to financial crises/depressions versus 'non-command systems', e.g. the US, New Zealand, Germany, etc. Hence, comparing the benefits and costs of China's 2008 fiscal stimulus to other similar policies from other non-command systems becomes necessary. However, it appears that you can't even get to this stage because you don't want to read further into the claims of your own position and because you can only repeatedly focus on the quickness of China's 2008 fiscal policy--while glossing over the costs. Again, this makes it difficult for me to continue this dialogue.

[_sabotage_]

Gabonx, sorry for helping to hijack the thread. I see your point and it is interesting. I hope others will have more input on it than me.

BBS, China has several issues facing it which trouble me. The Government is corrupt, I should know, I bribed them. It is a downfall of a command system that watchdogs or oversight committees don't really function while connections are the rule of the day and these connections are often nepotistic or bought. The licence that I went to a lot of trouble and expense to get didn't mean anything as Chinese companies came sweeping in without a license and used vast sums of money to bury my company in their wake. Three licenses were allowed in my district and I watched 16 competitors roll in without recourse. This should placate you as it is a fine example of a free market system, where only the fools, like me, who thought following procedure would give me some stability to invest the money I had into the enterprise.

There are also prime examples of government waste on infrastructure projects, such as the SE Asian games in Guangzhou, where the municipal government spent 50 times the budget and it likely went straight into the pockets of cousins and siblings of the purse-keepers.

There is also high and near constant inflation. But what you seem to be doing is linking all of these into the single point of the rapidity of action which a command system has available. You are the economist and I'm sure you will tell me how I much of an ass I'm making out of myself when I say that inflation could be related to growth and the strengthening currency in China, and that inflation has been comparatively high for quite a while and not merely since the stimulus was provided. Even my wife sometimes jokes about the saying: a 10,000RMB family- which in her formative years meant a rich family. You may also agree that corruption is not new in China, nor is nepotism or the benefit of having powerful connections.

But when you talk about empty cities, the closest thing that springs to mind is the South China Mall, which I believe is the largest of its breed in the world and does sit basically empty. Developers have made fortunes, as have most leaders of industry in the last few decades, and some of their projects fail. But it was a private project. And surely once China is all bullet-trained up and the population is all comfortably housed, the economy may need to refocus.

But this isn't the issue I was bringing up. I brought up a simple point in simple terms to deal with a simple post. A benefit of command systems is speed. I didn't say that it was right or wrong. I didn't say that the economics and the carrying out of it wouldn't lead to inflation, corruption or waste. What I said-and at times you may look around and realize that it isn't only the economy and how economic policies are that are important, but the population which also matters- is that they reacted quickly and this provided the public with confidence which is as vital a role if not more vital than sound policy.

I also compared it to the perception it made on the public. It mainly went unnoticed, as did the whole of the crisis, which then became perceived as an American problem. I'm sure you have pretty figures to back up what you feel and the actual truth of the matter, truths such as companies who dealt mainly with US and European clients freaked and started looking for new markets and that the economy did take a downturn to some extent, but these are external issues relying on depreciated buying power of foreign consumers. But from the man on the street, it wasn't really a big thing. There are certain other endemic reasons why this may be so, and if you wish to delve into your vast variety of lingo in reply you may feel free to do so, I understand bs quite well.

Credit, people in China don't want it, need it or in general have it.

Family, it's there before, during and after. Though this is starting to change slightly, it is on a whole still true. Children send money to their parents when they work away from home or share the family home when not. Family and home are the same character in Chinese, not just the same character as the word right meaning not wrong and right meaning the opposite of left are spelled the same, there is no easy way to differentiate
the meanings. Family money is quite collective and then managed by the most responsible choice. Children aren't burdened with student loans, their relatives pay or they don't attend uni. In an ideal world everyone would have doctorates in economics but then we'd all die of cold.

For these reasons, losing a job isn't a big deal to many in China. They have no lines of credit to worry about and they can return to their home and live with the family without any social stigma. And not many jobs were lost in comparison. But when you bring corruption and inflation into the argument, please don't forget to include growth, sustainable living and support networks into your calculations. Now the discussion is thoroughly convoluted and I'm sure you are deeply pleased, so now can I make my initial point.

China's command system enabled them to act quickly in the financial crisis of 2008 and had 0 political blowback from the public. (I'm sure their policies may have some economists shaking their heads and saying a penny there would have been better spent) In comparison, the US's bailout took much longer to come through and left the citizen's pissed long years later.

[GabonX]

Gabonx, sorry for helping to hijack the thread. I see your point and it is interesting. I hope others will have more input on it than me.

Thanks.

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt" eugenics


It may take some more effort, but omg the google conspiracy has been resolved.


Next unsolved conspiracy case, please.

I'm tired of you stalking me in every thread I make to try and nitpick for flaws that aren't there. In the last one you didn't bother reading the material and then claimed I failed to comprehend it. Here you're getting snarky saying that my conspiracy theory has been resolved. The obvious issue is that I never said there was a conspiracy. Interesting and conspiracy! are not the same thing.

I found it interesting that Google will substitute related terms after reading an article earlier in the day about how their search criteria is largely unknown to people outside the company. I linked to the article and used an example of how their criteria for search can be flawed. At the same time I thought this thread might spark a conversation about progressive eugenics history which is probably a conversation worth having...

Instead you butt into my thread, put words in my mouth as you frequently do, and start talking about China for some reason. I've seen you argue for things I support and then argue with me if I make the same points in another conversation. You seemingly follow me in every conversation I host or take part in and try to derail it, so I'm reporting you for trolling.

(1) I've pretty much ignored you in your other threads, so obviously I'm not stalking you. Recall that I've been out of action for about... a month or two? Since this is the case, your claims on my stalking you are ridiculous--yet flattering.

(2) I just had to notify the public that your OP was short-sighted. It should go without saying that you don't know how to use Google, but why not take the opportunity to joke about your OP while solving the mystery? If joking isn't allowed, and if you can't laugh at your own ridiculous OP, then neither I nor the mods can help you with your personal issues.

(3) If you wish to talk about eugenics and FDR, then why insert this funny insinuation about Google algorithms and Google's twisting 'FDR eugenics' into 'Teddy Roosevelt eugenics'? If you post silly stuff, then don't be surprised when people laugh at you.

If you wish to talk about eugenics (*sigh* really?), then don't run on some tangent about Google. Be clearer next time.


Hope that helps! See ya around, GabonX!

I don't give it long before you're banned again if you continue like this. Anybody that looks over the threads I've started in the last several months, there's probably less than ten, will see that there is a pattern of you coming into my threads and arguing with me over things that I haven't said. The fact that you're hot off a ban didn't stop you from spamming my wall with commentary while you were away. You've done it before and you continue to do it here...

I'm sick of you following me and derailing my threads with irrelevant topics or arguing against things I didn't say as though I had. When I point out that I never said a given thing, you double down like you did here, and make snide comments like "I just had to notify the public that your OP was short-sighted. It should go without saying that you don't know how to use Google." Give me a break.

I see. Sorry for being obtuse, but your specific response is that the ability to act quickly in a crisis is not a benefit of a command system? A command system has no benefits and personal observation has no merit?

I'm just saying that the benefits of a command system like China's do not offset the costs, and failing to read other sources other than one's own interpretation does not correct for cognitive bias. My concern is that you see what you want to see, and you evidently downplay the costs of China's quick implementation of fiscal policy. I've been highlighting such costs but to little avail. Therefore, if I have to deal with this, then I'm really not interested in discussing this with you. I don't mean to be rude, but it wouldn't be worth my time.

If we wanted to really get into this, we would have to compare the performance of 'command systems' in regard to responding to financial crises/depressions versus 'non-command systems', e.g. the US, New Zealand, Germany, etc. Hence, comparing the benefits and costs of China's 2008 fiscal stimulus to other similar policies from other non-command systems becomes necessary. However, it appears that you can't even get to this stage because you don't want to read further into the claims of your own position and because you can only repeatedly focus on the quickness of China's 2008 fiscal policy--while glossing over the costs. Again, this makes it difficult for me to continue this dialogue.

Once again I'm going to ask that you stop derailing my threads. For your benefit, seeing as you're hot off a ban and you've immediately resumed spamming and trolling my threads as well as others again, I'm going to paste some of the specifics in regards to spam and trolling here:

Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a contest of over-manly confrontation, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user is not cool. Prompting or provoking others (Baiting) to do that is just as bad.

Don't Bait or provoke others. Just because you didn't directly attack another user does not make your post a meaningful contribution. If your post's intent was to provoke another user into an emotional response, to get under their skin or to otherwise piss them off, you're baiting them. Hopefully the user doesn't take the bait, but you'll probably receive a disciplinary action from a mod.

Don't de-rail topics, don't spam them, don't flame them, don't bait them, don't drive a topic into a negative spiral.

Posts that add nothing to the current topic.

If the main point of your post is about something other than what the OP intended, it's not on topic, even if you did post about how you agree with the OP.

Just because everyone in the forum topic doesn't mind it going off topic does not mean that it's okey doky.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785#p1759438


So I'm going to go ahead and report this post as well seeing as it's spam and you continued and doubled down after I asked you to stop. I'm going to leave this thread and you can resume talking about China or you can have the last word on this or whatever... I really don't care.

That said, if you continue to do this it's going to be very easy to verify. Anyone who wants to look back will see that there is absolutely a consistent pattern of this, despite you claiming the contrary because half of these conversations between us tend to occur via PM/wall posts that I delete.

All yours.

[Lootifer]

My narrcisstic personality disorder alarm just went off.

[Ray Rider]

I don't give it long before you're banned again if you continue like this. Anybody that looks over the threads I've started in the last several months, there's probably less than ten, will see that there is a pattern of you coming into my threads and arguing with me over things that I haven't said. The fact that you're hot off a ban didn't stop you from spamming my wall with commentary while you were away. You've done it before and you continue to do it here...

I'm sick of you following me and derailing my threads with irrelevant topics or arguing against things I didn't say as though I had. When I point out that I never said a given thing, you double down like you did here, and make snide comments like "I just had to notify the public that your OP was short-sighted. It should go without saying that you don't know how to use Google." Give me a break.

I see. Sorry for being obtuse, but your specific response is that the ability to act quickly in a crisis is not a benefit of a command system? A command system has no benefits and personal observation has no merit?

I'm just saying that the benefits of a command system like China's do not offset the costs, and failing to read other sources other than one's own interpretation does not correct for cognitive bias. My concern is that you see what you want to see, and you evidently downplay the costs of China's quick implementation of fiscal policy. I've been highlighting such costs but to little avail. Therefore, if I have to deal with this, then I'm really not interested in discussing this with you. I don't mean to be rude, but it wouldn't be worth my time.

If we wanted to really get into this, we would have to compare the performance of 'command systems' in regard to responding to financial crises/depressions versus 'non-command systems', e.g. the US, New Zealand, Germany, etc. Hence, comparing the benefits and costs of China's 2008 fiscal stimulus to other similar policies from other non-command systems becomes necessary. However, it appears that you can't even get to this stage because you don't want to read further into the claims of your own position and because you can only repeatedly focus on the quickness of China's 2008 fiscal policy--while glossing over the costs. Again, this makes it difficult for me to continue this dialogue.

Once again I'm going to ask that you stop derailing my threads. For your benefit, seeing as you're hot off a ban and you've immediately resumed spamming and trolling my threads as well as others again, I'm going to paste some of the specifics in regards to spam and trolling here:

Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a contest of over-manly confrontation, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user is not cool. Prompting or provoking others (Baiting) to do that is just as bad.

Don't Bait or provoke others. Just because you didn't directly attack another user does not make your post a meaningful contribution. If your post's intent was to provoke another user into an emotional response, to get under their skin or to otherwise piss them off, you're baiting them. Hopefully the user doesn't take the bait, but you'll probably receive a disciplinary action from a mod.

Don't de-rail topics, don't spam them, don't flame them, don't bait them, don't drive a topic into a negative spiral.

Posts that add nothing to the current topic.

If the main point of your post is about something other than what the OP intended, it's not on topic, even if you did post about how you agree with the OP.

Just because everyone in the forum topic doesn't mind it going off topic does not mean that it's okey doky.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7785#p1759438


So I'm going to go ahead and report this post as well seeing as it's spam and you continued and doubled down after I asked you to stop. I'm going to leave this thread and you can resume talking about China or you can have the last word on this or whatever... I really don't care.

That said, if you continue to do this it's going to be very easy to verify. Anyone who wants to look back will see that there is absolutely a consistent pattern of this, despite you claiming the contrary because half of these conversations between us tend to occur via PM/wall posts that I delete.

All yours.

rofl you're trying to keep a thread on-topic in the off-topics forum? Good luck with that! I thought you would've known better by now...

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS took it upon himself to make this thread about China.

This thread is now about China.

show

If this thread is about China, then how is possible for me to go off-topic?

Are CC punishments retroactive in this circumstance?

I demand a hearing---FROM THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, TO THE PEOPLE, IN THE PEOPLE.