The same old mistake all over again - Page 7




 
--
 
January 9th, 2012  
samneanderthal
 
Roosevelt built rather few bridges (the Goldengate was not a federal project), highways (the US highway system was built by Eisenhower) and railroads (they preceeded Roosevelt). He built the Tenessee Valley irrigation system, the Columbia basin system, etc,). That water increased agricultural capacity and industrial capacity considerably (alluminum production, etc, from that electricity), making the industrial boom in WW II possible. The Chinese out did all that work with the 3 Gorges project.

I don't know if having a social safety net that collapses along with the economy is better than never having had one.

Another big difference with the 1929 depression is the billions of dollars now leaving the country for the drug cartels, which not only pay no tariffs, but require a huge expenditure pretending to deny them access.
January 9th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Roosevelt built rather few bridges (the Goldengate was not a federal project), highways (the US highway system was built by Eisenhower) and railroads (they preceeded Roosevelt). He built the Tenessee Valley irrigation system, the Columbia basin system, etc,). That water increased agricultural capacity and industrial capacity considerably (alluminum production, etc, from that electricity), making the industrial boom in WW II possible. The Chinese out did all that work with the 3 Gorges project.

I don't know if having a social safety net that collapses along with the economy is better than never having had one.

Another big difference with the 1929 depression is the billions of dollars now leaving the country for the drug cartels, which not only pay no tariffs, but require a huge expenditure pretending to deny them access.
I am sorry, bro. The highway system was planned during the Depression, what countries do is to expand the existing infrastructure; the railroads were there prior Roosevelt, yes. However, what they did was to modernize and extend the existing road network and railroads. The lessons from the Depression are, many Governments implements improvements, expansions, and so forth. However, today the entrepreneurs doing all this are much faster and the technological development. Further, the normal maintenance of roads, bridges, and railroads increase during a recession. However, the WWII placed many projects on hold, so a lot of things were delayed, That is the explanation for why Eisenhower later continued with the plans. What happen to the Chinese military and the threat they posses? It is interesting with the economical and the cultural geographical history, but I think we lost track here.
January 9th, 2012  
samneanderthal
 
The economy has triggered most wars. Hitler wouldn't have risen and attacked Europe without the chaotic German economy in the early 1930s. The Tsar would have never fallen had there been any bread in Russia, Louis XVI wouldn't have lost his head had there not been a cold spell that ruined crops consecutive years and had he not wasted his money helping the US against the British, so he couldn't buy grain from abroad.
The point is that China has expanded for decades and if it cannot continue to do so in a depressed world economy, it will have to either sink in chaos or go to war with unprecedented resources, especially if it musters enough allies and can defeat its enemies peacemeal, further increasing its might.

Another point for those who think that globalization is a new phenomenon. The same thing that happened to American industry in the last 25 years occurred in Britain early in the 20th century. Brtish capital was sent to other countries that produced a higher return on investment than British industry, causing the latter's rapid contraction.
--
January 9th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
The economy has triggered most wars. Hitler wouldn't have risen and attacked Europe without the chaotic German economy in the early 1930s. The Tsar would have never fallen had there been any bread in Russia, Louis XVI wouldn't have lost his head had there not been a cold speel that ruined crops consecutive years and had he not wasted his money helping the US against the British, so he couldn't buy grain from abroad.
The point is that China has expanded for decades and if it cannot continue to do so in a depressed world economy, it will have to either sink in chaos or go to war with unprecedented resources, especially if it musters enough allies and can defeat its enemies peacemeal, further increasing its might.

Another point for those who think that globalization is a new phenomenon. The same think that happened to American industry in the last 25 years occurred in Britain early in the 20th century. Brtish capital was sent to other countries that produced a higher return on investment than British industry, causing the latter's rapid contraction.
China has expanded economically, yes. Capitalism works quite well for them.

Do you have any figures that describe their military might and the change in this military might from early 1980s to now?
January 9th, 2012  
samneanderthal
 
It is not capitalism. If workers dare go on strike, the manager simply calls in the tanks. People don't work seven days a week, take 5 minute bathroom breaks and have inspectors to make sure that you don't waste any time talking at work in capitalism. There is no centralized purchases and export financing in capitalism, etc,
It is more akin to slavery than to capitalism. The incredible thing is that all of China's trading partners chose to ignore this for decades.

A good indicator of the increase in military potential is the increase in arms exports, from 303 million in 2005 to 1,423 in 2010 (470%). At the same time arms imports went from 3,511 in 2005 to 339 in 2010 (9.7%). Therefore military production probably increased over 12 fold in 5 years, far more impressive than Speer's achievement, considering there is not even a cold war going on.
January 10th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
It is not capitalism. If workers dare go on strike, the manager simply calls in the tanks. People don't work seven days a week, take 5 minute bathroom breaks and have inspectors to make sure that you don't waste any time talking at work in capitalism. There is no centralized purchases and export financing in capitalism, etc,
It is more akin to slavery than to capitalism. The incredible thing is that all of China's trading partners chose to ignore this for decades.

A good indicator of the increase in military potential is the increase in arms exports, from 303 million in 2005 to 1,423 in 2010 (470%). At the same time arms imports went from 3,511 in 2005 to 339 in 2010 (9.7%). Therefore military production probably increased over 12 fold in 5 years, far more impressive than Speer's achievement, considering there is not even a cold war going on.
It is capitalism, in its purest form, actually I was a bit mean to you there, I know what capitalism is, you mix it up with a political system, its not. It is an economical system. If you had studied political science, economy, and even international relations you had known that. It is very common to think capitalism require liberal democracy, it does not. You must consider the inflation when you use these figures of China's defense budget
January 10th, 2012  
samneanderthal
 
Capitalism implies letting the market adjust the prices (excludes government intervention). This is not the case in China at all. For example not only are international purchases centralized, artificially lowering prices for Chinese industry, zinc exports are limited, giving preference to national demand at a lower price than the international one. Accordingly, die-cast products in China can be made with the cheapest zinc and labor and outcompete any other country.

The US are not capitalistic either, when they subsidize agriculture, banking, the auto industry, wellfare people, etc, and allow exceedingly powerful and corrupt unions to dictate absurd wages in the auto industry, etc, that the government then has to bail out.
January 10th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Capitalism implies letting the market adjust the prices (excludes government intervention). This is not the case in China at all. For example not only are international purchases centralized, artificially lowering prices for Chinese industry, zinc exports are limited, giving preference to national demand at a lower price than the international one. Accordingly, die-cast products in China can be made with the cheapest zinc and labor and outcompete any other country.

The US are not capitalistic either, when they subsidize agriculture, banking, the auto industry, wellfare people, etc, and allow exceedingly powerful and corrupt unions to dictate absurd wages in the auto industry, etc, that the government then has to bail out.
You mix it up with the liberal market, not capitalism, which is who owns the means of production and letting individuals and/or corporations getting the benefits of the wealth the capitalism create. China has several private and state owned companies (Fortune 500) they lack political freedom, therefore, economic wealth has nothing to do with political freedom
January 10th, 2012  
samneanderthal
 
Like I said, if there is no completely free market there is no capitalism. According to you Stalin's, Mussolini's, Hitler's and Hirohito's economies were capitalistic. Which is false, since those leaders controled production and its methods, creating a completely artificial supply and demand.
January 10th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Like I said, if there is no completely free market there is no capitalism. According to you Stalin's, Mussolini's, Hitler's and Hirohito's economies were capitalistic. Which is false, since those leaders controled production and its methods, creating a completely artificial supply and demand.
China's government does not control what they are producing, they have a lot of corporations that produce what the market wants, both to the rich middle class in China and on a macroeconomic perspective, so these corporations are capitalistic, when the benefits from the means of production ends up with a selective few, then it does not matter who has the ownership of these corporations. The word and meaning of the word capitalism has been wrongly used since the end of the WWII. Hitler and Mussolini were capitalistic; they used private corporations to produce their tools for war. (Krupp, Porsche, BMW, etc) The war made the few very rich. Stalin produced what the state needed, not what the market needed. But you are touching something really interesting. I have argued the old Nazi party (NSDAP) was not a right wing party, it was left wing party. You know this left-right dimension of the political scale. Did the NSDAP belong to the right wing with the liberals, conservatives? (even in the beginning when the term of left and right, the liberals were left, this comes from France)
 


Similar Topics
Japan raps nuclear operator over radiation mistake (Reuters)
Amanda Knox says Italy murder sentence a mistake (Reuters)
Plane lands at airbase by mistake
Whats is your favorite War Mistake...