Hopeful? Doubtful?
I am not convinced that most Americans will be better off in 4 years time. But I think the US global position will be better.
I think he's lucky in his timing. It really is the darkest moment for the US with covid.
Printable View
Hopeful? Doubtful?
I am not convinced that most Americans will be better off in 4 years time. But I think the US global position will be better.
I think he's lucky in his timing. It really is the darkest moment for the US with covid.
I'm hopeful:
Trump was useful to expose lots of (US) domestic and foriegn policy issues that we were pretending didn't exist.
He made them public debate, and Biden is hopefully thoughtful/principled enough to continue the debate on these issues.
We'll all benefit from a better president, but also from a president better oriented to the things that matter.
First, it will be a welcome change to have a president that doesn't conduct government from Twitter. Second, there is no returning to "normal" as many like to put it. While Trump wasn't the cause of many of our problems here, he certainly was an enabler for many of the darker things that have happened in the last four years.
I don't hold out much hope for Biden/Harris to make good on the "coming together" theme they've espoused since the campaign. There's just too much of a gulf between Americans these days to think that 80's and 90's politics will be enough to bridge that divide. Having said that, he has to try. To not make any effort at all would be a dereliction of duty to the American people.
If Biden/Harris can get this pandemic firestorm under some semblance of control, that's a win. If they can get the US economy at least headed in the right direction, that's also a win (which, of neccesity means the pandemic is under control). If massive damage control can be conducted on America's standing in the world, that's a win (although I fear some of the damage wrought in the last four years is permanent).
I think some of those actions are entirely possible within the first two years. There are certainly many other actions that can be undertaken, like addressing economic inequities, police brutality, climate change, [fill in the blank here], and hopefully at least some headway can be made, though it will take more than a single president's term (and more likely many such terms) to make the kinds of lasting changes that need to be made. I don't hold out for FDR-like things to happen under the Biden Administration. The man isn't strong enough, or charismatic enough to accomplish such things. But if Biden and Kamala Harris can at least right the ship, and put out the fires, we might might have a shot at a continuation come the mid-terms in 2022, and the next presidential election in 2024.
Today is a black day for Internet communities. If the pessimist forecasts about a dramatic decline in twitter and diplomatic gaffes in the coming months are confirmed, then we should expect a respective contraction of the available topics for discussion, which will then affect rather negatively our traffic.
In the less important subject of American politics, I expect an improvement, but nothing radical. I don't think that Biden will manage to reverse his predecessor's policies in the most pressing matters, like the nuclear deal or fiscal reforms. The majority of the Democrats in the Senate is very slim and vulnerable to Manchin's conservative tendencies.
As for Biden, I personally like him more than Obama, but he lacks the charisma of his predecessor. However, charisma plays a role in politics, not administration. My biggest gripe is with Harris, whose alleged skills I find them very overestimated and who I consider as a particularly sleazy opportunist.
I just want boring competence from the new administration.
As others have said, Biden's legacy will rest on whether or not he can get Covid under control, a daunting task on its own without also having to deal with a large majority of Republicans thinking the election was stolen and trying to repair the damage from the past four years and all the other crises like climate change, economic issues, racial issues, etc. I will say though that I am most relieved that Trump will no longer have nuclear launch authority.
Here are his planned Day 1 executive orders, seems to be a solid start:
Attachment 24266
Edit: on a side note, Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman, who was filmed leading rioters away from the Senate chambers, apparently got promoted to Acting Deputy House Sergeant at Arms. Good for him.
I'm cautiously optimistic, he's got political experience, the Capitol attack two weeks ago has shocked the more moderate Republicans into seeing the danger of extremism. He's certainly got no shortage of problems to overcome, besides the pandemic and the economic problems there's the ever present foreign policy problems of China, NK, Iran, and Russia. What does one do with the Iran situation, I see no way in hell they'd agree to re-entering the same nuclear deal, even if made law by Congress. As I would usually pose the question to my Republican friends "see we've pulled out of the nuclear deal, no what? how do we stop Iran from going nuclear short of war?" How does one confront Chinese assertiveness in their near-abroad and they're increased corruption and meddling in allied nations politics (Australia, NZ, EU, NATO).
I'm with drone on this, I want some boring competence. I don't want to see every day what horrible thing the President or his cronies have tweeted. He's put a lot of technocrats into key positions, hopefully they get confirmed.
It is crazy seeing the 180 shift in the news coverage, all praises of course from CNN and MSNBC while Fox is worried about the incoming immigrant horde of caravans and increased taxes ruining "Trump's stock market boom."
Regardless of what anyone says, I will take the day just to enjoy the transition of power. Certainly a momentous day, as the swearing in of the first female and African American/Indian VP is a pretty big deal for a lot of people. I thought Biden gave a really nice speech and I also thought the poem was really amazing too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI1c-Lbd4Bw
Also did not expect Jennifer Lopez and Garth Brooks to ever share a stage but here we are. :laugh4:
Biden and the VP both seem to be above all else pragmatists with a long history of doing deals rather than idealism. And personally I think getting something done is better than screaming at the Other Side.
I hope that Donald's four years - and above all else Capitol Riot will - focus minds. It is easy to overlook rampant racism, a broken healthcare system and so on and so forth when it is all Out There and happening to other people. Poor people. Until the riot it was the usual view that yes, all the noise was worth the Conservative judges and the tax cuts. He's had an affair with a couple of pornstars? who cares? But when there's a mob only a few metres away that might seriously be looking to kill you personally this changes things. Hopefully there will be bilateral support for creation of the "guard rails" that up to now have mainly relied on human decency - laws having to procure all tax returns, all assets into a blind trust would be a small start. Addressing the Pardon power would probably require an amendment to the Constitution; Congress could also reduce the limit the power of the executive branch in codifying more independence of the Justice Department.
Biden talked about restoring American Leadership to the world. Barring military aggression (which is of course not leadership) I am unsure what leadership this is exactly. Human rights? Climate change? Weapon proliferation? Upholding the rule of law or democracy? Only an American could believe that they are ideals of any of these things, barring Cold War propaganda. Yes, historically America has aggressively enacted its interests but only in a "might is right" way. There is no underlying moral worldview and I don't see this changing. the American military needs things to do and enemies to face to justify the massive amount of money spent. Allies will be happy to have a return of the Pax Americana since they can all continue to underfund their military - which was one point that Donald was not wrong.
The other big issues are well known and well ignored:
- Rampant personal and institutional racism
- Worsening Wealth inequality
- Broken Justice system (racist and for-profit)
- Military-industrial complex
- Health system / Pharma-industrial complex
- Unequal tax burden
- Abysmal / absent worker's rights
To many in power in America, all of the above aren't broken - they're working fine. Money is sucked up and mainly given to the extremely rich with those in prison able to be treated as slaves and those outside able to be treated as indentured workers. Politicians are there to be bought. If Biden wanted to address them I doubt he could. There's no political will / votes in doing so and at 78 he is not going to have the stamina required to take on practically everyone.
If Donald was an F, Biden will probably be a solid C+
~:smoking:
All of those issues do, indeed, need to be addressed. None of them can be solved in a single presidential term, or even several. Maybe never...Quote:
The other big issues are well known and well ignored
I think one of the toughest tasks ahead for this administration is to govern in the face of very high expectations, some of which they've placed on themselves. Having a plan for moving the country forward is in stark contrast to the rudderless path we've had here the last four years, which is a symptom of not only Trumpism, but the GOP as a whole. Because no administration ever gets everything they want, how much of their plan they can enact, will be the basis for how they are graded....:shrug:Quote:
Biden and the VP both seem to be above all else pragmatists with a long history of doing deals rather than idealism. And personally I think getting something done is better than screaming at the Other Side.
Reversing some of the economic damage done by the Trump Administration with the EU, is a start, though I'm not sure how that can be done. The China Investment Agreement the EU just signed is a bad omen for the US. While no details have been released yet, it's a clear sign that the EU is trying to secure some form of economic stability going forward. America's economy has grown significantly in ten years, while Europe's has flatlined. China's economy has grown by leaps and bounds, and will surpass the US in the not-so-distant future. Military might is not the only weapon being wielded here.Quote:
Biden talked about restoring American Leadership to the world. Barring military aggression (which is of course not leadership) I am unsure what leadership this is exactly
So is the EU's willingness to deal more closely with China done from a position of strength or weakness?
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...europe/617753/Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
Definitely a good indication that Biden and the Dems have learned something from the Obama years when it comes to legislating:
Quote:
The fact that Democrats plan to move quickly on dreamers reflects a bunch of lessons that were learned the hard way, producing a shift in thinking. The key insight is that after years spent trying to do a large comprehensive immigration reform bill, it’s clear this approach has failed.
To be clear, the agenda that Biden plans to pursue is very far reaching and ambitious. As The Post reports, it includes pursuing legalization for the millions and millions of undocumented immigrants already here, an undoing of the past administration’s deep cuts to asylum and refugee flows, and more.
But the paradigm that Democrats were devoted to for so long — in which they tried to assemble a large package of reforms, then win over Republican support for it by offering to spend enormous sums on border enforcement — has largely failed.
Seeking a quick victory on the dreamers is emerging as one answer to this problem among many Democrats and immigrant rights advocates.
The basic thinking is that chasing Republicans with promises of enforcement money to get them to back immigration policies they think their base will hate is largely folly; they rarely seem to be willing to buck the base in the end.
A policy like legalizing the dreamers — and possibly people with TPS as well — could conceivably win Republicans. After all, some GOP senators who just won reelection, such as John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, did so while advocating for this, and others, such as Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and James Lankford of Oklahoma, have also backed the idea.
“If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the failed pursuit of comprehensive reform legislation, it’s that we should not wait and postpone progress where there is already consensus,” Chris Newman, the legal director at the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, told me.
The idea here is to start right out of the gate on immigration by doing something that would win overwhelming public support. The dreamers are highly sympathetic figures, and, crucially, their plight is well understood by the public. If Democrats passed something like this fast, and Republicans who signed on got public kudos and faced less blowback from the right than they feared, it could clear space for more movement later.
If not the US, then who? Who else in the world combines reach and living with these standards that you lambast the Americans for failing? The only alternative I can of would be western Europe, but you don't agree with that either. Japan and their institutional racism? China and their even more rampant racism, along with their very distant relationship with liberal values? India and their homicidally nationalist identity?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Something good enough immediately is better than something perfect in the indefinite future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Interesting thing going on in the Senate right now, per Senator Schatz (D-Hawaii):
Not sure what Mitch is playing at here, but if there was ever a move that would make Sinema and Manchin vote to remove the filibuster, this would be it.Quote:
McConnell is threatening to filibuster the Organizing Resolution which allows Democrats to assume the committee Chair positions. It’s an absolutely unprecedented, wacky, counterproductive request. We won the Senate. We get the gavels.
Does the world needs a country prepared to invade others for perceived slights? Is Iraq / Lybia / Afghanistan amongst others better for the intervention?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The attacks are not based on values - since there are many countries where there are ongoing problems such as Myanmar or Yemen that have yet to be bombed (unless you count selling weapons to those bombing).
Americans like to think they hold those ideals but the evidence demonstrates that this isn't the case.
Although far from perfect, the UN generally leads to a lot less deaths than America does.
~:smoking:
Why does the Trump thread get a capital 'T'? Outrageous bias.
An unusual much will rest in the laps of a handful of individuals, really: Biden and Manchin, Pelosi and Schumer. The party consensus is almost in place to make the first two years considerably more productive than Obama's (with large Congressional majorities). So now we're waiting not exactly on Great Man Theory, but to the Great Veto Points.
I am heartened that the Democratic caucus has finally shifted a little left, when even Joe Manchin is volunteering that we need more direct transfers and trillions in stimulus above the proposed programs.
No idea why Biden is making immigration reform (in Congress) a Day-1 priority, but it could be a prologue to packing every item on the near agenda from minimum wage - NO MORE TIPPED MINIMUM?!?! - to coronavirus relief into an enormous reconciliation omnibus, so we'll have to see what that looks like.
(Another suggestion I've heard is that Dems introduce arbitrary exemptions to the legislative filibuster before whatever the bills du jour will be, but I'm not sure whether Dems would be more or less likely to back such a gimmick than outright abolition anyway. )
"Trump talked out of pardoning kids and Republican lawmakers"
For once I'm genuinely surprised by Trump's behavior. Fire away, fellas.
It's a trend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crandar
From a certain point of view, democracies have a perfect record in "stopping Communism," whereas fascism fell through in a big way in allowing almost all of Eastern and Central Europe to come under its authority.Quote:
The Left calls you “fascist” because the Left fears fascism. Sadly, the monstrous fascist dictators were the most historically successful at stopping communism. I wish it wasn’t so. And I worry about what that means for our future.
Know what the Left doesn’t fear? Conservatism. They hate it because it’s the opposite of Leftism. But they don’t fear it because they know Conservatism cannot defeat Leftism.
Again, I wish it wasn’t so.
Conservatism is the opposite of Leftism. But it cannot defeat Leftism. Because there is not laissez-faire way to defeat communism. It must be aggressively purged or it festers and spreads like any other infection.
The McConnell wing doesn't want to dump Trump because they're better than Trump, it's because the McConnell wing wants itself to preside over Republican domination. Their only use for TrumpQuote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
iswas insofar as he can hold a pen.
I feel strongly about this. We can leave aside that "Trump-clan fears" are so often evidently not with regard to liberal policy outcomes per se, but to the essentialized nature of the liberal coalition (i.e. who, not what). Even an agnostic on that element of the conflict should be able to see it's time, for once, for conservatives to bring something to the table, to take the first step as Biden said, to prove their own seriousness. Trying to appeal to right-wing shibboleths was one of the worst things Dems did (or were forced to do, by some tellings) in living memory. (The only worse is their former status as the party of formal racism, really.) It's part of how we got to where we are, those bad old days when liberals crouched and cringed at the slur "liberal" and did their best to distance themselves from it as a historical concept or an ethos - and it's bad policy in its own right. In any other country the appropriate stance would self-evidently be for the governing party to continue to advocate to the general electorate over the common policy ground that truly exists, which is pretty much what Dems do (if arguably not as efficiently or intensively as they could). Yet what's obvious in every other country can't be allowed for here, in one of those odd bits of inverted exceptionalism where America is apparently such a depraved and degenerate society that some people - specifically the Right - can't be held to normal-people standards. But if a given individual don't wan't to compromise over common ground, which does exist, because they prefer fascism to compromise (compromise is not equivalent to 'conservatives receiving everything they are due'), they can learn that we don't negotiate with terrorists. Appeasement is OVER.Quote:
The only way out of it I can imagine is if the Dems make a concerted effort to prove the Trump-clan fears wrong.
The grassroots fascism, for there to be so many fascists besieging us is, naturally, a national emergency that calls for action. Someone else put it well (to paraphrase): The goal cannot, in terms of ethics or feasibility, be to persuade fascists to be liberals; it must be to make them into anything but fascists.
One means to that end is to show fascism losing over and over...
These kinds of domestic plots are, in the end, easy to infiltrate and break up by an agitated FBI. We do pay for our national security, we may as well enjoy some benefits for the price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
To be clear, the proposal here is to limit mucking about with conservative games and just move left immediately. Ironic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Tangentially, I did not know that the Blair government authorized a commission to determine minimum wage increases. Any comments?
Does leadership only mean wars to you? China has been throwing its weight around in east Asia, Russia has been funding destabilising movements in the UK and US, neither requiring war, yet both would be curtailed or reduced with something like Clinton-era US leadership in the political field. Would you rather everyone be atomised and left to the likes of China and Russia to prey on?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
With all the fashion statements being made at the Inauguration, this one makes me smile:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-not-for-sale
Quote:
Bernie Sanders’ mittens may have become the unexpected must-have fashion accessory of Joe Biden’s inauguration, but those hoping to steal the Vermont senator’s look are in for a disappointment. The teacher who made them and gave them to Sanders says she has none for sale.
She went on to say: “I hate to disappoint people, but the mittens, they’re one-of-a-kind and they’re unique and sometimes in this world, you just can’t get everything you want.”
This IS a totalwar site, Pan', you may as well have quoted Tamerlane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
China is throwing their weight around Asia. Why shouldn't they be? They've put up with nukes off their coast and an American fleet parked in what they view as a rebel province for decades. Given we appear to be in a post-woke world where everyone is equally valued and so on why is what their culture does worse than what we do? I am a dinosaur and I personally (and very quietly these days) believe that cultures can and should be proponents of values they hold as "right" and declare others to be "wrong" but such old beliefs have no place any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I am unclear what "leadership" would stop China and Russia with their cyberwarfare given atypical warfare since the capture of the Crimea by Russia has been shown to work well... And America / Israel / the UK and many others are also at it, against both enemies, allies, their own people and NGOs. America, Europe and elsewhere purchase so much from China that without a strong Government forcing home grown industries this isn't likely to change.
~:smoking:
I fixed the main title but you gotta go into the advanced reply section to edit the reply within the message itself. Odd settings, I didn't make them. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Same. I've heard that this also might be Manchin's final term before retirement so he might be willing to bend more towards the left than in the past.Quote:
I am heartened that the Democratic caucus has finally shifted a little left, when even Joe Manchin is volunteering that we need more direct transfers and trillions in stimulus above the proposed programs.
As the article I posted earlier stated, it would be an early and relatively easy win that is also very popular. Hopefully anyways. From what I can tell its not the sole thing on the agenda right now but I certainly don't blame them for wanting to move fast.Quote:
No idea why Biden is making immigration reform (in Congress) a Day-1 priority, but it could be a prologue to packing every item on the near agenda from minimum wage - NO MORE TIPPED MINIMUM?!?! - to coronavirus relief into an enormous reconciliation omnibus, so we'll have to see what that looks like.
I'm not surprised at all. The article you linked to stated that doing such pardons would make him more vulnerable legally. And ultimately, he only cares about himself.Quote:
"Trump talked out of pardoning kids and Republican lawmakers"
For once I'm genuinely surprised by Trump's behavior. Fire away, fellas.
For now it seems like McConnell is going to lose that battle, with some Senate Republicans already threatening his leadership if he votes to convict Trump. If he really does want to maintain control, he will have to whip some votes to convict or be relegated to a backseat position now that he's criticized Trump a bunch, drawing the ire of the Trump gang. He put himself in this bind and he has only himself to blame. Act boldly or go home.Quote:
The McConnell wing doesn't want to dump Trump because they're better than Trump, it's because the McConnell wing wants itself to preside over Republican domination. Their only use for Trumpiswas insofar as he can hold a pen.
McConnell sees his future in the party leadership is over and is looking to burn down the party rather than be a mocked backbencher. I wouldn't be surprised if he is deliberately agitating Dems to kill the filibuster and voting to convict Trump to ensure Dems get a fair shot at their agenda and hamper Trumpists from taking advantage of the strategic positioning McConnell has long fought to maintain.
This just makes you look dumb. No one besides literal tankies on the left genuinely support the Chinese government or its values.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Congrats, you are an American. Even our 'realpolitik' is mainly just value based decisions on how much to strongarm other nations into aligning with the US world structure.Quote:
I am a dinosaur and I personally (and very quietly these days) believe that cultures can and should be proponents of values they hold as "right" and declare others to be "wrong" but such old beliefs have no place any more.
Setting up a Digital Security Division with our best and brightest rotated in from Silicon Valley would go a long way to improving US defenses. We have better talent than Russia and perhaps China, they are just flocking to the private sector since it is so lucrative.Quote:
I am unclear what "leadership" would stop China and Russia with their cyberwarfare given atypical warfare since the capture of the Crimea by Russia has been shown to work well... And America / Israel / the UK and many others are also at it, against both enemies, allies, their own people and NGOs. America, Europe and elsewhere purchase so much from China that without a strong Government forcing home grown industries this isn't likely to change.
Trade deficits with China serve to bring them to the table as much or greater than force projection. Greater economic integration to the world institutions forces China to play by rules that US and Europe set after WW2. This is why Trump's leaving of Paris, Iran, and WHO was so completely moronic. These are all rigged in our favor, but US conservatism today wants nothing but complete subjugation as a matter of feels over reals.
Regional trading blocks with SE-Asia to set up sanctions will only grow more powerful as China's middle class grows and cheap manufacturing shifts elsewhere. China's place as the place to make everything is not set in stone and as living standards rise, Chinese labor is getting more expensive.
Expanding international aid and presenting alternative loans to Africa and SE-Asia will help reduce Chinese soft power in their belt-and-road beneficiaries. Ultimately China is either looking to put countries in a debt trap or legally occupy ports and bases in exchange for the infrastructure.
US funding of basic science and engineering enterprises has been lacking for many decades now. Quite frankly the US has a lot of untapped scientific potential that need long term grants to unlock.
Russian intervention has given us Brexit and Trump, both with the aim of undermining western stability. China is engaging in old fashioned colonialism in Africa, which I don't have much detail of beyond reports, and in Pakistan, which I have read a fair bit of detail about. Offer loans to build infrastructure which they own, staffed at the top by their personnel, resulting in Pakistan both owing China money and with their infrastructure Chinese-owned, and run by Chinese.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Maybe you're ok with that, with your worldview being primarily anti-European (and it seems, anti-American). But I'm not. I'd prefer our primary partnerships to be with countries who are closer in worldview to ours, who are less likely to want to harm us out of spite or cupidity.
I'll believe it when I see it. I dont see Mitch as being willing to burn down everything, he's not Trump in this regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
This is an interesting point for sure. Its not at the forefront of the news but China is definitely starting to catch up to the west in research and in some areas even starting to eclipse the west. AI is an example of this. Im not sure this is well known, but TikTok of all things uses an incredibly sophisticated AI algorithm thats better than anything Facebook or Google has and China keeps it a very closely guarded secret for that reason. So US leadership in this area is really needed, such as pooling resources with allies for further R&D.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Bieng against bieng in the EU has nothing to do with European countries, any more than bieng anti-Mafia means I am anti-Italian. Our world view is closest to Canada / New Zealand / Australia and the Nordics. Yes, closer to America than Russia or China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
America rejoining the Great Game is a good thing... It would be good if they could use soft power persuasion rather than killing people in droves. But this doesn't help the defence industry. China's dastardly loans and eeeevil investment has done a lot more good than Americas involvement in bombing several countries, self interested though it doubtlessly is.
America should belatedly join the TPP, Paris accord, fund the World Bank and sort itself out so next time the President talks at the UN they aren't greeted with spontaneous laughter.
Russia gave us Brexit? No... It was democracy. Of course the EU had lost every plebiscite that had been undertaken so the only real shock was Cameroon resigned rather than tweak and rerun until the right answer.
~:smoking:
A forlorn hope. The man is a 40 year veteran of a corrupt status quo and the status quo he will maintain. Even were his faculties in order, which now the election is over fewer people will pretend, he will do his utmost to be seen to address issues while actually solving nothing, for his stock were architect to those issues in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Antifa marched against him today. The country needed a Teddy, instead they imposed a Buchanan, the pressure cooker that birthed trump will resume.
That America has played the bully in international politics for decades since the end of WWII, needs no debate. That China's "self interested" loans and "eeeevil investment" has produced positive results, is also true. But......Quote:
America rejoining the Great Game is a good thing... It would be good if they could use soft power persuasion rather than killing people in droves. But this doesn't help the defence industry. China's dastardly loans and eeeevil investment has done a lot more good than Americas involvement in bombing several countries, self interested though it doubtlessly is.
.....methinks you gloss over just how self-serving China's aid is, and what they do when things don't go their way. I follow a lot of Australian media, and the Aussie's seem to be bearing the brunt of China's ire, at the moment. Example:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-...-2020/13019242
Australian journalists and citizens have been detained under "security issues".Quote:
Last year marked the first time Australia referred China to the World Trade Organization during a trade war between the two nations, which has largely been seen as a response to Australia's calls for an independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19.
China's ambassador to Australia Cheng Jingye warned of a potential economic backlash, suggesting there could be a popular boycott of Australian goods in China if Canberra continued to push for an investigation.
Australian export goods have been restricted on short notice:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-...rkets/12864220
And perhaps a pattern for economic bullying:Quote:
China is digging in its heels as the trade spat between Canberra and Beijing continues, with officials laying responsibility for the tensions solely at Australia's feet.
With no resolution in sight, many exporters affected by China's sanctions are now looking for alternative markets where they can sell their goods and services.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-...-pain/12243560
No real bombs, as of yet, but China's economic bullying is gaining in strength and frequency. Will that spill over into military action? Keep an eye on Taiwan....Quote:
The reality is Beijing has a long track record of economic coercion, and the pattern is strikingly similar across the globe: countries caught in a dispute with Beijing suddenly find their flagship industries hit with obscure regulatory roadblocks.
The aim is not to financially cripple the other country, but to remind them how easily Beijing can impose economic pain. It's an implicit threat designed to shape behaviour.
China's negative influence is a lot less overt but it is certainly there. Their investments overseas, especially in poorer countries in Asia and Africa usually include security clauses allowing them to employ their own workers, security forces, and laws. They give an investment 'loan' wait for said country not fail on it and then extend their influence to include long term leases of key infrastructure with even more latitude. It's pretty much how the different European East Indies companies got started in reverse and include Europe (Greece and Portugal especially).Quote:
America rejoining the Great Game is a good thing... It would be good if they could use soft power persuasion rather than killing people in droves. But this doesn't help the defence industry. China's dastardly loans and eeeevil investment has done a lot more good than Americas involvement in bombing several countries, self interested though it doubtlessly is.
This together with their pushing for Chinese companies to gain footholds in Europe and the US while not divorcing those companies from their own Army's influence is certainly a security danger.
I'd recommend the following video as an entertaining though certainly not journalistic level summary of Chinese influence overseas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhMAt3BluAU
For more proper research stuff on China I'd recommend this part of the Rand website:
https://www.rand.org/topics/china.html
The US has misused hardpower for 25 years now, but it's use of soft power has been effective, this is why Trumps undermining US softpower for four years has been so devastating. The US has long influenced other countries through direct investment or supra national organizations, Trump's unwillingness to cooperate in those due to America First has led to a US decline and Russian/China increase in soft power influence.
Greyblades, after further consideration and consultation with other moderators I see that I may have overstepped in my moderating. I apologize and I have reinstated your post.
The rulers of China is not a "good" country by almost any metric. They are almost always self serving with the sole aim of actions to be to enable the CCP to continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
But the world from their point of view is pretty scary: Russia is still a thing and is above them which captured territory after WW2. Allies of the USA are in Japan (who has attacked them), South Korea (who they fought against), Taiwan (a rebel province) and currently have bases in Afghanistan. Another border is India who also is also a threat (a few wars and skirmishes) and the reminder is small countries which the USA has invaded in the (to them) recent past. The rulers are in power since the populace has rising standards of living and currently are content with the deal. For this the economy needs to continually grow at rates that are otherwise unheard of... and at the moment their biggest clients are their biggest rivals. They also need raw materials from countries mainly more friendly to the USA, all of which is transported via the sea which the USA basically controls. And most of China's money is in a currency of the USA. A large province of theirs is full of people who follow a religion which historically is intolerant of other faiths and coincidentally borders countries chock full of both weapons and trained religious fighters.
The loans to Africa are difficult to solve. After throwing off the yoke of white oppression and oversight, most countries have chosen the yoke of a local which given they are also black and local is fine; some cases they're better than what the Europeans did (the King of Belgium sets a low bar here) in others worse. Even though for many years there is a prize of $1 million dollars for peacefully leaving office democratically it has yet to be collected - what is that money when you've got a country to ravage and diplomatic immunity? And the Chinese often offer money now for resources that the Chinese will remove. And added bonus as no need to educate or help the locals and of course a lot of the cash can be syphoned off. What can the West do? 50 years ago when for better or for worse we were the only game in town the IMF can give money with caveats. But no longer is this the only option. So that leaves boycott / embargo or invade - none of which are either palatable or particularly effective. China and Russia both don't like setting precedents of interfering with other sovereign states so the UN can't do anything.
The only thing that could have been done by the West is not purchasing trillions of dollars of goods from China to give them both the money to spend as well as the desire to diversify from massive dollar holdings.
~:smoking:
A repeat of the same rubbish that Biden suffers from some sort mental disorder. Didn't work for the GOP during the election campaign, and still doesn't hold water now.Quote:
Even were his faculties in order, which now the election is over fewer people will pretend, he will do his utmost to be seen to address issues while actually solving nothing, for his stock were architect to those issues in the first place.
You are certainly entitled to say he will solve nothing. A brash statement to make 2 days into his term. And like any president, Biden himself didn't create the mess that is America today, just like Trump wasn't responsible for the systemic problems we face here, he just amplified them.
As for the protesters....who ever said the far right-wing had a monopoly on riots? There are people at both extremes that want to further their agenda regardless of who's in office (and cast them aside when they don't meet their expectations---just check out what the Proud Boys have to say about their Boy now that he's out of office).
And where was all the tear gas and police in full riot gear for the Capital riot?
While a military threat from China always lurks in the background, I think most countries are feeling an economic threat, like the EU with their recent investment agreement. Procuring resources and products that are less dependant on China (like what the Aussie's are pursuing), may very well be the norm going forward...Quote:
What can the West do? 50 years ago when for better or for worse we were the only game in town the IMF can give money with caveats. But no longer is this the only option.
Not selling them key stakes in public or vital infrastructure is possible too. There's no need for China to have control of Piraeus harbor, there's no reason to let Huawei into telecommunications systems when they are linked to the PLA. Not moving manufacturing to China would be a good step, it would take the US and EU together though to make it happen. Right now both continue to deal with China because neither wants to lose such a good marketplace for their goods.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
It's one of Trumps major failings, pulling out of TPP and putting tariffs on EU and UK and NAFTA companies/goods has created more rifts in what should have been an economic front to limit Chinese excess in its mercantilist policies.
The economic threat is what will enable China to be a military threat. If everyone is dependent on China for its exports or supply chain manufacturing it will be difficult to do anything if say they invade Taiwan.Quote:
While a military threat from China always lurks in the background, I think most countries are feeling an economic threat, like the EU with their recent investment agreement. Procuring resources and products that are less dependant on China (like what the Aussie's are pursuing), may very well be the norm going forward...
The US and EU have always used investment as a carrot to try and encourage good behavior, the Chinese use investment as a foot in the door to then get leverage to demand good behavior.
Power corrupts, too much power for the US has corrupted it, allowed it to see hard power as the easy answer (Iraq war, punitive missile strikes). However, ceding power to illiberal powers like Russia and China is dangerous though as how they use power will likely be more threatening. Just because they've not conducted colonial wars is no sign that they are a peaceful power. The US and NATO has engaged in wars essentially to try and protect the status quo of the post-WW2 world order. China has no need to engage in similar wars right now, especially as a corrupt dictatorships or police states are exactly the types of clients they want to deal with.
With the current nationalist and jingoist trend of the Chinese propaganda and internal politics I worry for what a future would entail in which they gain the ability to project hard power too. Internal propaganda blaming the US and especially the UK and Europe for its "Century of Humiliation" will possibly mean that a generation of people will come to power that want revenge for that shame. Chinese sales of cheap fetnyl to the US and European markets could be seen as revenge for forcing the Qing empire to buy British opium despite their public efforts to 'crack down' on the trade.
All this is pretty China/Russia/US specific stuff though, perhaps we need a great power contention thread as I've veered far from any Biden policies so far.
Rumors of McConnell's imminent demise may prove overstated.
Samurai, as much as Manchin drives you to handwringing, a challenger approaches.
Quote:
Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona is more conservative than Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a loyal ally of President Donald Trump and a national conservative icon.
That’s according to a recent ideological ranking by GovTrack.us, a nonpartisan organization that tracks government data and statistics.
The freshman Arizona senator ranked 47th on the group’s annual conservative-to-liberal scale, which is based on lawmakers’ 2019 legislative records.
That puts her to the right of all other members of her caucus — as well as McConnell, who ranked 49th, and several other Republicans.
She is considered more conservative than her fellow Democratic moderates, such as Sens. Doug Jones of Alabama and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. She also ranked more conservative than Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Richard Shelby of Alabama and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
You don't know that was always a strawman?? It doesn't take long to notice that progressives apply very firm and aggressive ethical frameworks, whether or not you would agree with any. I'm pretty sure this whole "all cultures are equal" meme was invented as a petulant retort by those who felt their own cultures criticized from the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
A self-pardon was obviously tendentious, but not even for his kids? Come on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
The best explanation I can think of is that Trump is, or was made, very sensitive to potential 5th Amendment considerations flowing from a blanket pardon of his closeco-conspiratorsfamily.
I've posted this before, but it is a fascinating diagram.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Attachment 24279
You and @spmetla might be interested in the source article/blog.
One factor you're missing, that I've learned of recently, is that China has a huge advantage as an economic hub. Inputs and outputs ALL along the supply/value chain can be produced or assembled there, an area with a common legal framework and good infrastructure and plentiful labor. And if some production moves to Vietnam or the Philippines, China still maintains its place as the hub of the entire region. Why ship all around the world when you can go from extraction to retail all in the West Pacific?Quote:
Regional trading blocks with SE-Asia to set up sanctions will only grow more powerful as China's middle class grows and cheap manufacturing shifts elsewhere. China's place as the place to make everything is not set in stone and as living standards rise, Chinese labor is getting more expensive.
Apparently, the TPP was America's attempt to bypass China's development on this path by creating an alternative Asian agglomeration with itself integrated, one key upside from a business perspective (and admittedly this was an area where the TPP went too far) being that American-led economics prioritizes IP security, integrity, and rents in a way China notoriously does not. But that ship has sailed.
A relevant concept here is "economies of agglomeration," and one of America's advantages for the past ~150 years has been its own status as the premier agglomeration economy where all forms of economic activity along the industrial supply/value chain could be located under a single stable and prosperous political regime. This is seemingly also one of the objectives of the EU in integrating European economies, markets, and regulatory frameworks.
Anyway, China has decisive advantages beyond cheap(er) labor; they just used the first burst of FDI and cheap labor to bootstrap themselves into hub status, nearly a generation ago now. Ain't no going back. Remember - the Chinese littoral and riparian zone has been the densest center of population and economic activity (and often political sophistication) for almost the entire history of civilization.
And I'm not even sure the US has any enticing alternatives to present to African or Latin American - or even European! though they're still our biggest partner, for now - governments in place of Chinese investment and trade. Who wants to alienate the largest market in the world, liberal and loose-conditioned with its cash (at least in the short term), in favor of vague and measly promises from what looks ever more like a fading power? I can't imagine the level of leadership and commitment needed to make a credible attempt. To proper effect, the collapse of artificial distinctions between American domestic and foreign policy atop a comprehensive internal civilizational project (i.e. socialism).
I don't know much, but to my mind most trends point to China securing a position where it needs any given country less than they need it. That's clout. Be that as it may, industrial policy is a swell thing that the West might want to try again.
Did anyone figure out what Serbia's PM was doing?
I'm not sure this is the most honest portrayal of Sinema, who is very pro-LGBT rights, pro abortion, pro-ACA, and anti-gun. Yes, she is definitely a moderate Dem, but to the right of Mitch? Nah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Per your link:
So yeah I dont really think that just going off of voting records and bill sponsorships is the best way to gauge these types of things.Quote:
The GovTrack analysis assigns scores to members based on the pattern of legislation that lawmakers cosponsor. It does not take other factors into account that may affect lawmakers’ ideological stances, such as caucus memberships, media appearances, social media posts, endorsements in campaigns or their penchant for bipartisan friendship.
McConnell’s relatively liberal score could be because, as a leader, he may not be as deeply involved in legislation as other senators are, according to GovTrack President Joshua Tauberer. And the score doesn’t reflect his efforts to move the president’s conservative judicial nominees through the Senate. That said, he added, “there’s no way to rule out that the bills McConnell cosponsors may tend to be more moderate.”
Well that's what I was talking about. Trump definitely is very aware of the self-incrimination issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Would definitely like to see the updated version of this, as with a new administration comes different US policy positions on some of these, such as the INF treaty.Quote:
I've posted this before, but it is a fascinating diagram.
Attachment 24279
You and @spmetla might be interested in the source article/blog.
A few things to consider:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
1. COVID impacted supply chain management such that business culture began taking a more skeptical look at putting all their eggs in one basket so to speak. When a country such as China is willing to enforce entire lockdowns and terminate all production with relatively little heads up, it creates bottlenecks and disruptions for most manufactured goods many of which still linger such as today's less than normal supply of large appliances, bicycles, plastics, etc. Also long term management of the country (e.g. it's failure to adequately learn from SARS years ago) is still questionable with short term management still undesirable in ways you already mentioned.
2. To my understanding, East-Asian countries retain historical animus towards China (well towards each other in general) and are not as driven by economic ideologies as the West. Countries in the region will continue to promote their own independence as they can by minimizing their economic dependence on China and gravitating toward a more neutral player like the US or Europe as a matter of preference. I liked this passage from 'Factfulness' (page 131):
3. While China has been an economic hub for most of human history it, along with India, was economically self sufficient pre industrial revolution and did not make concerted efforts to further integrate itself into world or even Asian markets most of the time (again, to my understanding). Its foreign policy was sending navies out periodically to enforce tributes and invasions of its closest neighbors. Keep in mind the timeline and strategy of Western colonialism in Asia, how with the exception of Portuguese Macao, Europeans ignored China's ports favoring instead trading ports across modern day Indonesia during the 16th and 17th centuries which had extremely prosperous kingdoms controlling trade between China, India, and East Africa.Quote:
The Vietnam War was the Syrian war of my generation.
Two days before Christmas in 1972, seven bombs killed 27 patients and members of staff at the Bach Mai hospital in Hanoi in Vietnam. I was studying medicine in Uppsala in Sweden. We had plenty of medical equipment and yellow blankets. Agneta and I coordinated a collection, which we packed in boxes and sent to Bach Mai.
Fifteen years later, I was in Vietnam to evaluate a Swedish aid project. One lunchtime, I was eating my rice next to one of my local colleagues, a doctor named Niem, and I asked him about his background. He told me he had been inside the Bach Mai hospital when the bombs fell. Afterward, he had coordinated the unpacking of boxes of supplies that had arrived from all over the world. I asked him if he remembered some yellow blankets and I got goose bumps as he describes the fabric's pattern to me. It felt like we had been friends forever.
At the weekend, I asked Niem to show me the monument to the Vietnam War. "You mean the 'Resistance War Against America,'" he said. Of course, I should have realized he wouldn't call it the Vietnam War. Niem drove me to one of the city's central parks and showed me a small stone with a brass plate, three feet high. I thought it was a joke. The protests against the Vietnam War had united a generation of activists in the West. It had moved me to send blankets and medical equipment. More than 1.5 million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans had died. Was this how the city commemorated such a catastrophe? Seeing that I was disappointed, Niem drove me to see a bigger monument: a marble stone, 12 feet high, to commemorate independence from French colonial rule. I was still underwhelmed.
Then Niem asked me if I was ready to see the proper war monument. He drove a little way further , and pointed out of the window. Above the treetops I could see a large pagoda, covered in gold. It seemed about 300 feet high. He said, "Here is where we commemorate out war heroes. Isn't it beautiful?" This was the monument to Vietnam's wars with China.
The wars with China had lasted, on and off, for 2,000 years. The French occupation had lasted 200 years. The "Resistance War Against America" took only 20 years. The sizes of the monuments put things in perfect proportion. It was only by comparing them that I could understand the relative insignificance of "the Vietnam War" to the people who now live in Vietnam.
4. China may not even have the densest center of economic activity by mid-century. Their population curve is currently transitioning downwards while India still has another 25-30 years of projected growth before their demographic transition towards a shrinking population hits. India will have more people than China as soon as 2027 according to the UN. China's population is aging faster than any other country and they have no effective welfare state to prepare for this. They will have more people over the age of 65 as a % of their country than the US by mid-century. Chinese culture traditionally had multi-generational housing with children expected to take care of their parents and grandparents at home. If the US Social Security is considered a 'ponzi scheme' in a shrinking world, then China has a big one.
5. Data on belt-and-road investments is limited because China continues to withhold information from the world on its decision making processes, such is a big negative in itself. But the available data and analysis has led many to believe that lots of corruption and frankly bad investments are being made, essentially throwing away money that China would be better using to establish domestic welfare.
All of this is to say that China has proven more than capable at manipulation of current environments and making very planned advances towards certain policies and outcomes. But the same could be said to a certain extent of Putin's Russia. Their cyber-warfare is running circles around us, the Crimea is theirs. But the fundamentals of managing shit at home is just not there and Russia continues to decline overall. My hot take is that China has just as much chance of becoming another Russia, projecting a foreign diplomatic weight that outsizes their actual internal strength, as it does of making the 21st the 'Chinese Century'.
Simply pointing to population may not account for everything. Is India politically stable?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
US is in a precarious position - I understand hope, but let's face the music a bit here. It's in a difficult position right now and this administration has potentially way too much on it's plate. In fact, too much on it's plate for any administration.
Hopeful, yes, doubtful, even more yes.
ACIN, the question is how much the negative factors matter given the advantages. The West Pacific is a basket of baskets, in a way that US-Europe or US-South America can't really ever be.
Ultimately, the idea that economic gravity will shift from China doesn't hold much more water to me than that it will from America (cf. our own instability and decaying infrastructure). Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see it as likely in our lifetimes short of the more cataclysmic climate change scenarios (in which case all contemporary geopolitics goes obsolete).
Countries on China's periphery, except maybe ones in too deep like Pakistan, are of course happy to try to balance against China with a larger patron. But that's "balancing," not an anti-Chinese axis. Countries like Vietnam and South Korea are always going to be more integrated into the Chinese sphere than we would like - as they already are. They can't afford to do otherwise.
I'm not sure that aging demographics really matter with even a modicum of tech investment and "low-value" immigration, and at any rate there's a difference between an aging country of several million and one of several billion. The baseline labor pool is simply much larger than anywhere else. And the Philippines, for example, is integrated into the existing hub, so even if somehow loads of production moved out of China to the Philippines, that would still support the overall Chinese ecosystem.
...Unless you go to Africa, the one booming population pool in the 21st century, but the lack of historical infrastructure, investment, and stability will greatly limit Africa's potential as an alternative to China, not to mention the value of having a unified regime. The silver lining is that by the same token Africa wouldn't simply become an alternative to Europe and North America from the Asian perspective either... Yet even there, Chinese investments in Africa are foresighted because they secure long-term access to some of the most desirable economic sectors and geographies in rising Africa - in a way that serves China directly while preempting superation...
Ironically, yes, China does have to fix its welfare state and medical services, which are in some ways even stingier and more restrictive than ours. Not to do so would in my ideological estimation lead to undesirable social friction. (Truly universal medical care and old-age security could be the next frontier of the CCP legitimating project if they were so inclined).
Especially dubious to me is the idea that lockdowns signal instability to investors, when short and sharp Chinese lockdowns created both more policy success and predictability than the low-foresight whackamole evident in Europe (the US doesn't even rise to that level).
There was always lots of trade, led by the Chinese diaspora throughout the SE Pacific. They just didn't make a habit of directly maintaining long trade routes through the Indian Ocean, which no one really did. India and the Middle East were always going to be the middlemen to the Mediterranean or Africa by simple technical reality. Before modernity at least.Quote:
3. While China has been an economic hub for most of human history it, along with India, was economically self sufficient pre industrial revolution and did not make concerted efforts to further integrate itself into world or even Asian markets most of the time (again, to my understanding). Its foreign policy was sending navies out periodically to enforce tributes and invasions of its closest neighbors. Keep in mind the timeline and strategy of Western colonialism in Asia, how with the exception of Portuguese Macao, Europeans ignored China's ports favoring instead trading ports across modern day Indonesia during the 16th and 17th centuries which had extremely prosperous kingdoms controlling trade between China, India, and East Africa.
I don't remember the Europeans skipping Chinese ports - see the Opium Wars. What you might be noticing is that, prior to the 19th century, European powers didn't really have a direct colonial presence in China proper. This is not because they didn't want those ports/colonies - just the opposite! - but because the Qing regime was still too strong to overcome with the as-yet-limited European presence in the Pacific. Once India was opened, it and the Pacific archipelagos were ripe to be exploited first as the easier pickings. Recall that Africa was not properly divided and colonized until the second half of the 19th century; it would be wrong to interpret that as Europeans having no use for or designs on Africa.
Hard to say because these are inherently long-term investments with prospective payoffs far into the future. Any such strategy has to include potential loss leaders like Hambantota. Needs deeply-informed analysis.Quote:
5. Data on belt-and-road investments is limited because China continues to withhold information from the world on its decision making processes, such is a big negative in itself. But the available data and analysis has led many to believe that lots of corruption and frankly bad investments are being made, essentially throwing away money that China would be better using to establish domestic welfare.
Little-seen observation: a suboptimal scenario for China doesn't imply a renascent one for the US or Europe, or vice versa. I think all of us going down together is the likeliest counterpart to the scenario in which China takes the US to our USSR. Maybe a 0.1% chance of the US establishing the Neo-Comintern and exporting revolutionary socialism to the Chinese periphery, aka the best case.Quote:
My hot take is that China has just as much chance of becoming another Russia, projecting a foreign diplomatic weight that outsizes their actual internal strength, as it does of making the 21st the 'Chinese Century'.
While you overstate the intensity or relevance of those stances, I agree that bill sponsorships and voting records are not the full measure of a politician. After all, it would have been pretty silly for anyone to claim that Harris is to the left of Sanders based on these scores, right? :creep:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Sinema is no Republican (which, e.g. makes her orders of magnitude more pro-abortion than someone like Susan Collins). I think it's clear she's been working to position herself to the right of Manchin though, and not unwillingly. The article I linked is reposted on her own website!
What's striking is that she was notably more liberal in the 2000s, right? I guess we just have to hope she's flexible like many politicians are.
Breaking news, funnily enough. Now look, I'm not going to single her out on the filibuster issue specifically, just because for bypassing the filibuster to be practical it would have to be in furtherance of a non-reconciliable agenda of protecting voting, ending gerrymandering, admitting new states, and expanding the whole federal judiciary. That is the subject matter of the politics of survival for Democrats, and unfortunately even as all Democrats have moved left fiscally, I don't believe the majority of the caucus yet truly understands the existential and protracted character of the ongoing conflict. So Sinema/Manchin aren't even the limiting factor in that regard.
Ok point taken :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The filibuster issue is a really really tough one and I definitely sympathize with the lawmakers dealing with this. If the filibuster is removed, then the Dems basically have to guarantee they always hold at least one chamber or the presidency in every subsequent election because the second the GOP controls the trifecta, well we all know what will happen. I think it was the reason why more terrible conservative legislation wasnt passed during the first two years of Trumps term. I also have a very real fear that a lot of what the Dems pass will get struck down in court challenges, such as the expansion of voting rights which SCOTUS is probably even less sympathetic to now.Quote:
Sinema is no Republican (which, e.g. makes her orders of magnitude more pro-abortion than someone like Susan Collins). I think it's clear she's been working to position herself to the right of Manchin though, and not unwillingly. The article I linked is reposted on her own website!
What's striking is that she was notably more liberal in the 2000s, right? I guess we just have to hope she's flexible like many politicians are.
Breaking news, funnily enough. Now look, I'm not going to single her out on the filibuster issue specifically, just because for bypassing the filibuster to be practical it would have to be in furtherance of a non-reconciliable agenda of protecting voting, ending gerrymandering, admitting new states, and expanding the whole federal judiciary. That is the subject matter of the politics of survival for Democrats, and unfortunately even as all Democrats have moved left fiscally, I don't believe the majority of the caucus yet truly understands the existential and protracted character of the ongoing conflict. So Sinema/Manchin aren't even the limiting factor in that regard.
I don't read up on India nearly as much as China, I have no idea how well Modi is doing. Seemed to be stable enough through the 2010s, as India GDP growth outpaced China for several years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
There's a fair bit of Hindu nationalism on the rise there, which is, if anything, even more toxic than the Han nationalism going on in China. Every bit as bad and murderous as the Islamicism going on in Pakistan. Whatever unpleasantness is going on in China, at least it's secular and not religious. The equivalent of Soviet gulags versus religious lynch mobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
OK, I've kind of conditioned myself into expecting less of Democrats, but here is what they "should" be structurally reforming to secure their (and our) long-term interest:
1. Abolish filibuster
2. Admit, at a minimum, DC.
3. Voting Rights Act banning gerrymandering, maintaining all the various expansions seen in 2020 + automatic registration, reinstating federal preclearance for offenders who break the law or don't meet minimum standards. <Stuff that I'm missing ATM.>
4. Expand federal judiciary from District to SCOTUS.
This achieves the simultaneous and interlocking goals of reducing Republican structural advantages in the House and Senate (with knock-on effects for state/local politics) and preventing the Republican judiciary from unduly interfering with Democratic governance. In the long term this is necessary both to address some of the conditions that Greyblades fairly, albeit unconsciously, gestured at as having generated our current predicament, and to limit the probability of Republicans in their fascist form securing unified governments in the first place.
Because to be frank, there isn't going to be as big a difference as some seem to imagine between a filibuster-extant and filibuster-extinct scenarios. The extremism ratchet goes only one way, and only a paradigm shift (enabled by aforementioned structural reforms) is sufficient to counteract it.
If Republicans want to take an opportunity to ban abortion and unions and terminate Social Security, that just means we can Build Back Better before it's too late.
This is what I would demand from the Democratic caucus if I understood them as fungible, generic actors properly motivated by the greater good and a clear-eyed apprehension that it's better to pay the firefighters less sooner than more later to douse your infernal house.
If they have to psych themselves up to it by letting Republicans screw around for a few months, I can tolerate that, but I'm not sure it's what's going on. But I set the expectations for myself long ago when I predicted that there was no chance of deep structural change without at least 52 or 53 Dem Senators, so I'm not going to get lathered over baked-in
Doubtful China would even go for any degree of open immigration when their ethnostate project is moving forward with multiple genocides ongoing at this moment. I don't think you can write off these issues as negligible due to bulk labor size. Chinese economy is tied into manufacturing not tech, which means the relative productivity decreases as a worker in a factory ages relatively more than a corresponding tech worker in an office. And while the labor size is that much larger, the burdens due to the much larger number of retirees is also that much larger, which is why I mention age as percentage of workers. The relative burden on Chinese society and finances to take care of elderly will be higher than in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The African Union has set up a 2063 plan to address the issues you bring up. 2021 will be the first year that all of Africa operates as the world's (now) largest free-trade area. It's anyone guess the long term success of Africa's self-governance and economic competitiveness, but I am optimistic.Quote:
...Unless you go to Africa, the one booming population pool in the 21st century, but the lack of historical infrastructure, investment, and stability will greatly limit Africa's potential as an alternative to China, not to mention the value of having a unified regime. The silver lining is that by the same token Africa wouldn't simply become an alternative to Europe and North America from the Asian perspective either... Yet even there, Chinese investments in Africa are foresighted because they secure long-term access to some of the most desirable economic sectors and geographies in rising Africa - in a way that serves China directly while preempting superation...
So when we talk about the negative factors outweighing the advantages, we have an authoritarian state setting itself up for unrest but with no political outlets to mitigate any of the angst. Despite the shock and horror of 1/6, it is quite remarkable how US citizens have neatly divided themselves into two entirely different realities and still manage to coexist (for the time) within the same political structure.Quote:
Ironically, yes, China does have to fix its welfare state and medical services, which are in some ways even stingier and more restrictive than ours. Not to do so would in my ideological estimation lead to undesirable social friction. (Truly universal medical care and old-age security could be the next frontier of the CCP legitimating project if they were so inclined).
The more pertinent point is that Chinese governance in general does not prioritize business interests to nearly the same degree as the West.Quote:
Especially dubious to me is the idea that lockdowns signal instability to investors, when short and sharp Chinese lockdowns created both more policy success and predictability than the low-foresight whackamole evident in Europe (the US doesn't even rise to that level).
Yes, but I am addressing the sentiment behind, "Remember - the Chinese littoral and riparian zone has been the densest center of population and economic activity (and often political sophistication) for almost the entire history of civilization." which implies that what was will always be, when it is clear that that is not what what was (exactly). Such a sophisticated political structure would surely have moved to absorb the trade wealth that the city states in modern day Indonesia facilitated, cause there was long trade routes through the Indian Ocean. It was easier to move goods overseas than overland prior to industrialization. To define a region as the densest center of economic activity is misleading when it is heavily internal trade with surpluses going out as exports under a relatively isolationist political mindset. If we are talking about international trade relations and economic dominance in a geopolitical sense, that title goes to India for 2,000 years not China.Quote:
There was always lots of trade, led by the Chinese diaspora throughout the SE Pacific. They just didn't make a habit of directly maintaining long trade routes through the Indian Ocean, which no one really did. India and the Middle East were always going to be the middlemen to the Mediterranean or Africa by simple technical reality. Before modernity at least.
I mean, Portugal had a direct presence in China and Japan *shrug* so it was possible to do. But when we say 'easier pickings', we are saying the cost of subjugating those areas was worth the wealth extracted. But the original claim is that China was the densest center of economic activity, so were Chinese ports worth fighting the Chinese navy or not? There was a two hundred year gap between the failed Dutch invasions into Chinese territory and the Opium Wars, European trade routes could be extendable into China whereas it was logistically difficult in Africa to move further inland until railroads came about. Idk, not an expert here and my point is supposed to be modest: Don't over state the historical case. Europe seemed to find it acceptable to fight amongst themselves for control over South East Asian waters rather than try to directly break open Chinese or Japanese ports.Quote:
I don't remember the Europeans skipping Chinese ports - see the Opium Wars. What you might be noticing is that, prior to the 19th century, European powers didn't really have a direct colonial presence in China proper. This is not because they didn't want those ports/colonies - just the opposite! - but because the Qing regime was still too strong to overcome with the as-yet-limited European presence in the Pacific. Once India was opened, it and the Pacific archipelagos were ripe to be exploited first as the easier pickings. Recall that Africa was not properly divided and colonized until the second half of the 19th century; it would be wrong to interpret that as Europeans having no use for or designs on Africa.
Agreed.Quote:
Hard to say because these are inherently long-term investments with prospective payoffs far into the future. Any such strategy has to include potential loss leaders like Hambantota. Needs deeply-informed analysis.
Hey, as long as we decline slower than China in the long run, the relative strength of the US increases at the bargaining table. At some point we need to reckon with how to exist with a government that is quite frankly more evil and has perpetuated more atrocities on this earth since Genghis Khan. I'm not interested in the US holding ground or maintaining a respectable sphere of influence, the existing Chinese government is a threat to human rights worldwide.Quote:
Little-seen observation: a suboptimal scenario for China doesn't imply a renascent one for the US or Europe, or vice versa. I think all of us going down together is the likeliest counterpart to the scenario in which China takes the US to our USSR. Maybe a 0.1% chance of the US establishing the Neo-Comintern and exporting revolutionary socialism to the Chinese periphery, aka the best case.
Depends on a number of assumptions, such as - in a raw statistical sense - how much investment per capita there would be in China vs. the US. A lot of our costs are tied up in end-of-life or palliative care that China might not prioritize, or that we ourselves might resolve somehow. Another assumption is that neither health enhancement technology nor care sector productivity will increase much. We've had this discussion around Japan's issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
What's weird is, you're a Yang fan, so you should be more sensitive to the possibility that raw "low-value" labor may not remain in the same state forever.
Hmmm.Quote:
The African Union has set up a 2063 plan to address the issues you bring up. 2021 will be the first year that all of Africa operates as the world's (now) largest free-trade area. It's anyone guess the long term success of Africa's self-governance and economic competitiveness, but I am optimistic.
It's not chauvinistic to point out that Africa has a lot holding it back that the rest of the world actively participates in, so changing that (e.g. getting more socialistic with how we procure resources from African countries) is necessary IMO to unlocking the continent's potential. As it is, Africa will have hundreds of millions of people living in areas among the most vulnerable to drought and famine and disease, in what is already the world's most conflict-scarred geography. We're all just taking what we can while pissing about refugees, when in reality the solutions require a global collective effort to change our ways of living. It's possible, there's just little reason to think we'll rise to the occasion.Quote:
Ending all wars, civil conflicts, gender-based violence, and violent conflicts by 2020
Another option is that African states rise to the occasion and realize their national boundaries are pointless and destructive and the African Union really should be a full federal state in the service of all its constituent groups. If it takes 50 years for the AU to approximate where the EU is now as an institution/framework, it's more probable that limited goal is never reached anyway and it's all unmitigated disaster unfolding.
The final measure is of course how the actual business interests behave and think, to which world governments are beholden. Is there evidence on your side of the balance? Unless, again, geopolitan socialism sets China's market power on the path to obsolescence.Quote:
So when we talk about the negative factors outweighing the advantages, we have an authoritarian state setting itself up for unrest but with no political outlets to mitigate any of the angst. Despite the shock and horror of 1/6, it is quite remarkable how US citizens have neatly divided themselves into two entirely different realities and still manage to coexist (for the time) within the same political structure.
I mentioned this in the form of IP security and rents, but not every company or sector cares enough about this issue to exit or avoid the Chinese market. Mostly it's the highest-value industries in electronics and components, military hardware, or IT that are in theory affected, all the areas in which China has prioritized domestic advancement anyway (on the back of IP theft among other things). AFAIK China has managed to balance bootstrapping domestic capacities and alienating foreign firms pretty well so far.Quote:
The more pertinent point is that Chinese governance in general does not prioritize business interests to nearly the same degree as the West.
Ultimately, the network effects generate a lot of mass for retaining and attracting investment and operations.
One area worth studying, and that I can hardly give any sort of commentary on (let alone informed analysis), is Chinese monetary policy and aspirations, since that level of policy can have the broadest-ranging effects and signals.
No, but it implies hysteresis, a return to an equilibrium, in the absence of change to the relevant enabling conditions.Quote:
which implies that what was will always be
As I said, China was doing plenty of trade both overland and overseas, it was certainly not isolated, and I don't see why a non-policy of overt territorial absorption would change that any more than it would for an assertion that India (really the collection of Indian polities) was the center of international trade. The question, and defined terms, of what region and in what time period experienced the most 'international' maritime trade is a scholarly one that I admittedly haven't read about - and for which we are likely not prepared here. Regardless, the fact remains that China was the economic hub of the world for ever, and a deprecation of "internal" trade is senseless when almost all trade was such under some definition, and distance and scale matter. Did trade in the Roman Mediterranean not count toward the wealth and sophistication of the empire because it was a Roman sea? Shipping wine from Alexandria to London is always more intensive than doing so from Bordeaux to Cognac, independent of the contemporary traverse of suzerainties.Quote:
It was easier to move goods overseas than overland prior to industrialization. To define an isolated region as the densest center of economic activity is misleading when it is all internal trade. If we are talking about international trade relations and economic dominance in a geopolitical sense, that title goes to India for 2,000 years not China.
The whole point here is not that China's status is intrinsic but that it arises from enduring geographic and demographic conditions, and that the 20th century was an aberration in history, which most agree with anyway.
There's a big difference between operating a few monks and missions and dictating maritime governance and access. There is no logical connection between the state of the Chinese economy and the 'correct' targeting of European mercantilism/colonialism; of course easier pickings matters. The object was rarely to control large populations for its own sake, but to extract and utilize local resources, certainly before the late era. Nor were European powers interested in selling their goods to Chinese consumers, remember. Chinese ports primarily served Chinese markets, the governance of which was not a pressing question until the balance of power had shifted enough that the European powers could decide that undesirable impositions such as tariffs could be overcome by force.Quote:
I mean, Portugal had a direct presence in China and Japan *shrug* so it was possible to do. But when we say 'easier pickings', we are saying the cost of subjugating those areas was worth the wealth extracted. But the original claim is that China was the densest center of economic activity, so were Chinese ports worth fighting the Chinese navy or not? There was a two hundred year gap between the failed Dutch invasions into Chinese territory and the Opium Wars, European trade routes could be extendable into China whereas it was logistically difficult in Africa to move further inland until railroads came about. Idk, not an expert here and my point is supposed to be modest: Don't over state the historical case. Europe seemed to find it acceptable to fight amongst themselves for control over South East Asian waters rather than try to directly break open Chinese or Japanese ports.
Once there were deeply-established European colonies and naval presences in the region and the Qing state was less of a factor, pursuing Chinese ports came to make more sense also as a matter of peer competition (e.g. preferential access and naval basing).
In conclusion, the shifting needs and capacities of the European and local actors are what influenced imperialist policies, which themselves of course reflected China's declining geopolitical status.
Have you and ACIN considered that attitudes may be different in China towards what you consider to be care and social commitments? What westerners may consider to be responsibilities of the state, Chinese may see as responsibilities of the family group. What westerners may see as the state's realm may be different from what Chinese see it to be. China is not a liberal society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
McConnell seems to have caved on his demand that Dems promise to preserve the filibuster. Maybe Sinema and Manchin will reverse down the line when they see how McConnell's words of bipartisanship are in bad faith. Not holding my breath, but we will see. I do think public pressure from their constituents can help move the needle for them on this. Though if people want to see how the moderate wing of the Senate Dems are thinking, we should be paying attention to Bennet and Coons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The countries that are going to be of increasing importance in the next decade:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ves-worldwide/
Quote:
Lithium is used primarily in batteries, glass and ceramics, with other uses including rocket fuel and lasers. The global lithium battery market is projected to grow substantially in coming years, from 30 billion U.S. dollars in 2017 to over 100 billion U.S. dollars by 2025. The electric vehicle market will propel the growth of the lithium market as the number of hybrid and electric vehicles powered by rechargeable lithium batteries picks up. In 2018 the top producers of lithium battery cells were estimated to be Panasonic Sanyo, CATL, BYD, and LG Chem. It is expected that Germany, China, Japan, and France will be leading electric vehicle producing countries.
Turkey is ramping up production and there is to be a mine in the UK - both cases using geothermal waste water. If this works, quite a few other countries will probably follow suit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
~:smoking:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...ibuster-462364Quote:
Seems to me that Manchin is as delusional as Biden about the willingness of the GOP to compromise, and he is definitely relishing his new found power within Congress. What do I know....I'm just an old country boy from the Wolverine State? But it seems clear to me that the GOP strategy is/will be to block-block-block until the 2022 mid-terms where they plan/hope to reclaim Congress. Say whatever you wish about Dr. No, but he's definitely as savvy as they come at politics. And anyone who thinks he doesn't have a plan to get himself back into the Senate Majority seat is delusional.Quote:
“If I haven’t said it very plain, maybe Sen. McConnell hasn’t understood, I want to basically say it for you. That I will not vote in this Congress, that’s two years, right? I will not vote” to change the filibuster, Manchin (D-W.Va.) said in an interview on Monday afternoon. “And I hope with that guarantee in place he will work in a much more amicable way.”
That's not to say that the effort shouldn't be made for bi-partisanship. But when that effort is snubbed by the GOP, the Dems had better grow some cohonees and forge ahead on their own while they can. And abolishing the filibuster will be one of those tools in the box. If Dems hope to avoid the historical back-slide in the mid-terms following a presidential election, then the best way to do that is pass legislation that actually helps the other 99% of Americans who aren't in the privileged elite.
"Chuck Schumer tried to unseat Susan Collins, and now it's personal"
Ah well, it was never going to work out anyway.
Sure, but I don't have a reason to believe that the Chinese are so uniquely libertarian in culture as to collectively lean towards diminishing the role of government in preventing old people from ignominiously dying of sickness and starvation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Show me the popular movement in China that demands, "Get the government out of social security! Offload more of the cost of caring for my parents onto me!"
rofl as though Communist China didn't aspire to an "iron rice bowl" guaranteed by the government, prior to the market reforms.
It's more a family thing than a state thing. If you don't get the role of the family in Chinese society, you don't get Chinese thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Heh, now that's good series writing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCWxknzIg0o
Fox News has lost its top spot in the cable news ratings for the first time since pre-9/11.
It had ended 2020 with record highs in viewership, though CNN was already in the process of overtaking it.
It may not yet be clear what's going on, but it sure would be ironic if Trump has inadvertently pushed more Fox viewers to CNN and MSNBC than OAN and Newsmax. Find out in coming episodes of the 2021 season.
Also, I just learned that Finland has two standards of treason. The first is essentially like that specified in the American constitutional order, but the second reflects our more colloquial use of the word.
Valtiopetos ('high treason') is not a military crime, but an offense against the very nation or its established order. Here is the Finnish president commenting on the Jan. 6 putsch.
You'll have to be more specific, as I get what you're trying to say but you're not relating it to the real world. Welfarism is not a function of liberalism but rather, in one form or another, a universal contemporary consensus. Most people in every country* accept the proposition that the state must do something to provide for the sick, the elderly, and the less well-off; specifics may vary. Even the majority of base Republicans agree in principle, and they're quite possibly the most anti-welfarist bunch on the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The Chinese state does provide for the social security of the elderly, and not on a mere family-subsidized basis. In the Maoist days, it aspired and attempted to provide more. Expanding social security or healthcare access is not something that would be culturally alien to the Chinese people, independent of any particular manifestation of policy or governmental interest/public approval therein.
If, as ACIN and many others believe, old-age care is going to become a very big social problem in China by the mid-century, one that will not be ameliorated in some non-fiscal way, then there's nothing to show that the Chinese public won't place demands on the state to do something about it, or that the CCP wouldn't be able to conceive or (ideologically) countenance expansion or reform of existing programs.
The potential limitations placed by extended families and filial piety on the growth of the sort of long-term care facilities that exist in the Anglosphere (and trust me, Anglophones of the past, within living memory, felt similarly - until they didn't) aren't a limitation on public expectations or government initiatives.
*Every "real" country let's say, I won't speak for the Vatican or Lichtenstein
? :sad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Welfare in Chinese society starts with the family. At both ends of the spectrum, both when very young and when very old. When the immediate family does not suffice, then the extended family contributes. You cite Maoism, but that was an aberration in Chinese history, when the state replaced family. It is not looked upon with any fondness. Where the state does allow for provision, it supplements, not replaces, effort from the family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The first paragraph above is by no means as universal as you think it is. It is extremely wide of the mark where China is concerned.
*sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
This is from 2012, beyond what I cautiously allowed for above.
(American) Medicaid and Medicare pay for senior secondary care and assisted living in private residence.Quote:
Until recently, institutional elder care in China was rare and limited to the so-called “Three No’s”—people with no children, no income, and no relatives, who were publicly supported welfare recipients.26 Institutionalized elders were stigmatized.27 Few families could imagine placing a loved one in an institution to be cared for by strangers. Most residential care homes were run by the state, municipalities, local governments, or collectives.
In the mid-1990s China implemented reforms to decentralize the operation and financing of state welfare institutions.28,29 Since then, these institutions have shifted their financial base from reliance on public funding to more diversified revenue sources, including privately paying individuals.27
Elder care homes have proliferated, primarily in the private sector in urban areas.4,7 Although there are limited data, one recent study provides a glimpse into the growth and character of this nascent industry over the past thirty years.4 In Tianjin, for instance, there were only 4 facilities in 1980 (all government run), but there were 13 by 1990, 68 by 2000, and 157 by 2010 (20 of these facilities were government run, and 137 were privately run). Similar rates of growth were also observed in Nanjing and Beijing.4
The historical pattern of residents in elder care facilities and the sources of revenue that pay for their institutional care have also changed, as shown in Exhibit 4. In Tianjin in 2010 and Nanjing in 2009, almost all residents in nongovernment-run homes were private payers. Even in government-run homes, most residents were private payers. Welfare recipients were rare and mostly housed in government facilities.
The current mix of facilities spans a wide spectrum, ranging from “mom and pop”–style board-and-care homes providing little professional care to modern nursing homes with skilled nursing and medical services.4
As of 2010 there were an estimated 40,000 elder care facilities and 3.15 million beds in those facilities nationwide.30 On a per capita basis, China has about half as many long-term care beds per 1,000 older people as most developed countries do. Just 1.5–2.0 percent of people ages sixty-five and older live in residential care facilities in China, compared with 4–8 percent in Western countries.31,32
China’s twelfth five-year plan (2011–15) for socioeconomic development set a goal of adding another 3.42 million beds in the next five years, to boost total capacity to thirty beds per 1,000 elders ages sixty and older by 2015, from roughly eighteen beds per 1,000 elders in 2011.30
You have an unrealistic and ossified view of Chinese culture. China is, at furthest, where we were a century ago.
After all the BS about the voting process this past election, you just knew THIS was coming:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-voting-rights
Quote:
After an election filled with misinformation and lies about fraud, Republicans have doubled down with a surge of bills to further restrict voting access in recent months, according to a new analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice.
There are currently 106 pending bills across 28 states that would restrict access to voting, according to the data. That’s a sharp increase from nearly a year ago, when there were 35 restrictive bills pending across 15 states.
The most distressing part of all of this is that even if a new voting rights act is signed into law to prevent the GOP from enacting such BS changes, you know that the courts will strike down large parts of it like they did the original VRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
Yeah this is all bad and all, but we all need to buy Gamestop stock right now guys.
On the off-chance that you are serious, please don't, its a bubble that is going to burst probably pretty soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It's not about the money, it's about sending a message. *joker meme*Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Gotta squeeze these wall street gamblers.
Try this more recent article on the matter, from 2020. The culture still overwhelmingly looks to family first of all, and then private supplements funded by family. Care for the elderly is a family thing in China, not a state thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Thank You Georgia for giving us this twit...:shame: She's at it again:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/marjor...-space-lasers/
Yep...space lasers and the Jews....:crazy:
Heck yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Brian Schatz
Isn't most Gamestop stock held long by institutional investors, like Blackrock? Screwing Wall Street Peter to pay Wall Street Paul...Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
This stereotyping is getting a little demeaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Further insight into the family-oriented culture of the inscrutable Oriental mind.
Back to reality, the Chinese culture has shifted tremendously, and it will very obviously continue to do so as all the supporting structures for this tradition erode or are replaced or pressured as time passes. Note, ACIN, that this is not in the context of what challenges the future demographics of China may pose to the Chinese government, or how it would overcome them; this is simply outlining the uncontestable insight that Chinese culture will adapt to and adopt increasing demands by the Chinese public on both public and private sectors to supplement traditional old-age care fiscally, medically, and through a variety of assisted, residential, institutional, or community care modalities.
As seen in the very article Pan links, because duh.
Quote:
In 2012, there were fewer than three nursing home beds for every 100 elderly residents in Shanghai. And despite government pledges to provide thousands of extra beds by 2022, the problem remains equally acute today. Many downtown facilities have waiting lists stretching well over a year.
Shortages of in-home caretakers — who do the vast majority of care work in the city — are even more severe. A decade ago, surveys suggested Shanghai needed an extra 550,000 domestic workers to meet its elder care needs.
Care solutions for the elderly have only grown hundreds-fold in China since the market reforms. Clearly, as the elderly population booms and China continues to get richer and more assertive, the only plausible outcome is that they will, by the operation of some mystical and observably-declining cultural factors, cease to grow. :freak:Quote:
“My mother has three children and the three of us shared the responsibility of providing for her,” says Huang. “I can’t imagine what things will be like when I get too old to take care of myself. My child’s generation is the country’s first generation of single children. They’re going to deal with huge pressure.”
No, it doesn't take an expert to follow the crumbs and predict that the private industry will consolidate and rationalize and the expansion of the public safety net will at a minimum become a subject of ongoing debate. It doesn't take an expert because it happens everywhere that the elderly population booms. The Chinese are not magic space aliens, they're modern human beings. Just ask the Japanese and South Koreans how they're treating the 'family-only' model. Although, to be fair (???) to the South Koreans, they seem to be getting by in adopting the model of simply not giving a shit. Actually, it's not wild to imagine the Chinese government endorsing such a 'solution', even in the case that SK later amends it.
For a proxy worth the comparison, Asian-American attitudes to nursing homes (the most 'extreme' option in long-term care):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6403016/
Compared to polling on Americans in general, with the caveat that this refers to "preference" rather than "willingness":Quote:
Approximately 38% of the sample demonstrated willingness to use a nursing home. Higher odds for willingness were observed among those with advanced age, female gender, Korean ethnicity (compared with Chinese), better education, presence of a chronic medical condition, longer years of residence in the U.S., and lower levels of family solidarity.
https://www.longtermcarepoll.org/lon...nd-caregiving/
Quote:
Most Americans age 40 and older (77 percent) would prefer to receive care in their own home, with far fewer preferring to receive care in a senior community (11 percent), a friend or family member’s home (4 percent), or a nursing home (4 percent). Among those who prefer to receive care in a home setting, there are gender differences in preferences for who provides that care: men would prefer to receive care from a spouse (51 percent vs. 33 percent), and women would prefer to receive care from their children (14 percent vs. 35 percent).
In conclusion Western society prioritizes individualism, whereas it is the sacred, immutable way of the esoteric Seres to uphold the collective.
:thinking2::thinking2::thinking2:
Meme's aside, there are a wide range of reasons people are jumping in. Some are definitely treating it as a pump and dump. The guy who started the whole craze, u/DeepFuckingValue posted his prediction of a short squeeze over a year ago and has been posting daily screenshots showing he is still in until the squeeze absolutely kills the shorts, AKA Diamond Hands, TO THE MOON, HOLD UNTIL $1000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
But many people sucked into the memes are riding a sentiment that for the first time retail investors are able to make a real power play in the market and not be treated as two bit players. The rise of commission free apps like Robinhood has democratized financial markets to a degree I don't think people expected to happen. At the very least I don't think these hedge funds ever anticipated such a coordinated effort happening among retail.
So it's not even that some hedge funds win and some lose, the sentiment driving this is that for once regular joes can win over wall street investors at their own game and punish some for being greedy. Bulls get rich, bears get rich, pigs get slaughtered.
Keep in mind these are all middle class young people in 20s and 30s, we all got fucked in 2008 and remember how wall street was never taken to task but instead was given more of our tax dollars. The idea that wealth could actually start to move from wall street to retail is precious and is why the last few days have been a shitshow of brokers halting trades, class action lawsuits and politicians across the spectrum getting involved in the affair.
Maybe. but a lot of people find it hard to be sympathetic to bro-y young men (self-styled "degenerates") on Reddit with money to burn.
https://i.imgur.com/uFzzWnP.jpg
Sounded better in the original Deutsch.
Definitely good to see that Dems aren't taking the 2009 approach to legislation, and have indicated that they will move forward with reconciliation for the Covid relief bill if the GOP wont get on board:
Definitely good to hear because the GOP's $600B plan that they came forward to negotiate with is a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Majority Leader Schumer
I found this to be a pretty good infographic showing the difference between the Dem and GOP plans:
Attachment 24318
With zero dollars going to state and local governments as well as zero to the child tax credit this isn't a serious proposal by the GOP and a nonstarter. I suppose they are just putting it forward for the sake of bipartisan appearances but not actually in good faith. I'm glad that Biden has clearly rejected it.
An issue that I havent seen discussed much is the impending redistricting efforts. I cant find the chart at the moment, but basically the GOP stands to really benefit, and will probably gain 6-8 seats from redistricting alone due to GOP-held state legislatures pledging to gerrymander where they can. So Dems only have the trifecta for the next two years and we need to move quickly as I have little faith that the Dems keep the House regardless of what is passed. The only factor that I can think of that could keep Dems the trifecta is how well Covid recovery goes. If it goes well, then there is a potential for holding the House, even if its a small chance.
Edit: Manchin has stated his support of Biden's Covid relief bill, so really all eyes are on Sinema now.
Report
:rolleyes:Quote:
Per sources, Biden is telling Senate Democrats on their virtual lunch how he told Republican senators yesterday that their package was too small.
Campaigning for the 2022 Midterms has already begun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeDo...ature=youtu.be
Main article here:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...non-gop-465157
Quote:
Making an unusually early move to protect their narrow majority, House Democrats' campaign arm on Tuesday launched its first TV ad campaign, spotlightingsupporters of the fringe conspiracy theory — including those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. It is the first step in a larger plan, orchestrated by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's new chair, Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, to exploit the growing friction between Trump hard-liners and establishment Republicans in the GOP base, which Maloney sees as a major weak point for the party.
Party strategists are betting the right's embrace of the far-fetched conspiracy theory will be politically toxic and hamper their efforts to win back the House in 2022. Already, Democrats are seeing encouraging signs: Challengers in Republican-held districts are beginning to jump off the sidelines, citing the attack last month as a motivation for running.
Perhaps Manchin and Tester plan on on using the pipeline to ship vaccine??:
https://www.newsweek.com/senate-back...-biden-1567048
Take the GD money that will be wasted on this crap, and put it into Green Energy....Jeeezuz:no:Quote:
Senators backed the symbolic amendment in a 52-48 vote, with Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), the chairman of the energy committee, and Jon Tester (D-MT) voting with GOP lawmakers to back construction of the pipeline.
.......hmmmm, Joe Manchin voting in favor of fossil fuel? what a surprise....:inquisitive:
Psychoanalysis of moderates and institutionalists in government:
Quote:
My theory, which is mine, is that the Senators who are resistant to this kind of thing are people who are having trouble pulling themselves away from America's civic religion.
We joke about the fecklessness and the out-of-touchness of politicians... but if you don't come from a rich background, getting into politics is hard. It's backbreaking work, with little money and little reward, and if you win local or even state office, usually the reward is a lot of work and pressure without a ton of compensation. It's only after you scratch and claw your way up that you acquire real power and influence.
Joe Manchin comes from a big family in a small, poor town. Sinema lived in an abandoned gas station for three years as a kid.
What inspires a lot of these people to invest the back-breaking effort to get into politics (among other things) is a real, true belief in the American civic religion, in the narratives and myths and institutions that surround them. These are people who look down the Mall from the Capitol, past the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial, and genuinely feel a thrill of patriotism every time.
They feel that doing radical surgery to the hallowed institutions they serve in is a kind of betrayal of two and a half centuries of tradition; that there must be some better, purer way forward, or even better yet backward, to the (highly idiosyncratic and unusual) postwar Age of Bipartisan Comity, when the filibuster was only brought out by clear villains who were righteously defeated because a supermajority of Congress said "no; this will not stand."
There's a sense that changing the rules because you can't win is cheating, or debases the institution. You see this in sports; how many people absolutely blow their tops anytime the NFL or MLB proposes a rule change? There are still people who feel the designated hitter rule "defiles" the sport!
I don't think this is a conscious belief on the part of any of these folks. I think they have a very, very clear awareness that things are fucked up and bullshit; but their own faith in American institutions and our civic culture is, paradoxically, preventing them from taking steps to SAVE that culture. They look at the burning church and think "how can I make the church go back to before it was burned, the way I remember it" rather than thinking "the church IS burning. It's gonna need new stained glass windows and a new roof and a better fire suppression system and modern HVAC."
Or at least, that's my pathetic attempt at armchair analyses. I hope I'm right because the other plausible options I can think of are worse.
Wouldn't most of the information a former president might be forwarded already be known to foreign intelligence services? I hear it's the methods, which a former President would not have access to, that are under particular scrutiny in spycraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
I'm sure we will come to learn many things about the internals of the Trump administration.
Doubt all of that. If they were really so concerned with Institutions they would have learned a thing or two about the filibuster, it's ill-liberal origin, its relative scarcity except among racists and segregationists, how the current minoritarian wielding of the filibuster is even out of alignment with the Founding Fathers (hint: the senate was never meant to a '60 seat' chamber to pass legislation).Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
It's all bullshit because they are simply afraid of two things:
1. Being accountable for legislation that would never pass cloture. They want to ride the middle and the filibuster lets them get away from taking a vote on policies that the majority of their party wants to promote but could hurt their re-election.
2. GOP will use the absence of the rule to destroy democracy as we know it.
The first is a case of being fucking cowards that love the prestige of being a Senator without actually having to make hard choices. Expose them for the cowards they are, make a decision on the floor and stand by your principles or get the fuck out of office.
The second is genuine fear, but as noted in the article it is precisely the constant lack of governing that makes fascism appealing to a public that sees Democratic government unable to accomplish anything.
"They would have been able to repeal Obamacare." Why didn't we fucking let them! If the GOP had actually snatched back the ACA in its entirety without any comprehensive plan to replace it would have been the biggest shit show in the world. Millions of people losing their healthcare is not good politics and would have been good anger for Dems to tap into. Hell, much of 2018 midterms was because of the attempt to repeal the ACA that had people watching CNN at 3am in the morning for the final vote and Sen. McCain's *thumbs down* 'no' gesture. How much longer will good people suffer from the brain worm that the GOP promotes that Obamacare is still bad and we have a much bigger and better plan we could have implemented..if it wasn't for Dems...and some RINOs....
I don't disagree with you, but the theory I reposted wasn't about institutions qua valuable institutions, it was about the personalities/backgrounds of the centrist Dems leading them to worship the Senate as they entered it as a key component of American Exceptionalism or the American Dream ("because you have to be asleep to believe it"). It's insufficient as a sole explanation, but I think it has some truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
HAHAHAHAHAQuote:
"They would have been able to repeal Obamacare." Why didn't we fucking let them!
Dude McConnell is so incompetent he couldn't even repeal Obamacare with reconciliation.
That's just the thing, Republicans don't know how to govern, to build, only to destroy. There is no affirmative agenda they have waiting in the wings; they're totally unprepared to lead, given the opportunity.
If we think they could take advantage of a Dem first move on the filibuster by openly attempting to abolish SS (they couldn't do it in 2005), Medicare, abortion rights, whatever, then let the battle lines be drawn. Let the punks bring it on and make our day.
But how can you worship the institution of the Senate and not understand the filibuster is not even an inherent part of it, more like a legislative cancer that has been growing on it slowly since the beginning. There is nothing about the filibuster that makes it inherently tied with the Senate as an institution since it was not around for the first 40 years after the Senate's conception and played no real part in legislative history until 15 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What have we even been afraid of this whole time?Quote:
HAHAHAHAHA
Dude McConnell is so incompetent he couldn't even repeal Obamacare with reconciliation.
That's just the thing, Republicans don't know how to govern, to build, only to destroy. There is no affirmative agenda they have waiting in the wings; they're totally unprepared to lead, given the opportunity.
If we think they could take advantage of a Dem first move on the filibuster by openly attempting to abolish SS (they couldn't do it in 2005), Medicare, abortion rights, whatever, then let the battle lines be drawn. Let the punks bring it on and make our day.
ACIN, did you know that there are people who believe America is the greatest nation in the world and the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Like Senator Leahy from Vermont, who agitated to maintain Senate rules thatwouldlet Republicans block Dem judges, and promised to reinstate them if given the opportunity.
It's those people. It's a mindset.
I guess all we had to fear was fear itself? At any rate, just like in those times appeasement has run its course and the moment is (over)ripe for open mobilization.Quote:
What have we even been afraid of this whole time?
Following up on the article I posted from Ezra Klein, I am 80% through his book 'Why we are Polarized' and it's making a big impact on me. I highly suggest buying it on kindle and blasting through it, most of it you have already pointed out but later on there's juicy bits about how US government has only been effective at times of de facto single party rule where opposition parties had to come to the table for influence or get nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Two statements that have shook my idea of good government, "campaigning is inherently detrimental to governing" and "American government works best when political competition is slim to none".
A little bit of preliminary fact-checking on Joe Biden's Wisconsin Town Hall, hosted last night on CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/polit...kee/index.html
I realize the man has a lot on his plate, but if you're going to go in front of the American people, you should have the facts at your disposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
Biden seems to have been referencing a typical pro-indexation argument that, had the minimum wage not dissociated from productivity growth, it would have been around $20 now. Based on those old trends.Quote:
Biden said the $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage is too low, then said soon after: "For example, if it went -- if we gradually increased it -- when we indexed it at $7.20, if we kept it indexed by -- to inflation, people would be making 20 bucks an hour right now. That's what it would be."
Facts First: This is false; the White House told CNN after the event that Biden got mixed up with another statistic about the minimum wage. Today's federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, which took effect in 2009, would not be even close to $20 per hour if Congress had decided to link it to inflation. Adjusted for inflation, $7.25 in January 2009 was equal to $8.98 in January 2021.
Did he get confused about the controversy over "illegal" vs. "undocumented" ("there’s a whole range of things that relate to immigration")? Unauthorized border crossing is a criminal/civil offense, whereas overstaying a visa is not, and we have multiple programs and offices dealing with categories of asylum seekers (e.g. Temporary Protected Status).Quote:
Biden said of the US population of undocumented immigrants: "The vast majority of the people, those 11 million undocumented, they're not Hispanics; they're people who came on a visa -- who was able to buy a ticket to get in a plane and didn't go home. They didn't come across the Rio Grande swimming..."
It fits in the same pattern, a longstanding one in the bigger picture: the unfortunate truth is that Biden has a tendency toward muddling together multiple ideas and facts in an impressionistic way when speaking generatively (remember the Democratic debates?). I can't say if it's a loss of sharpness over time.Quote:
Facts First: Biden got at least one of these statistics wrong -- in a way that made Trump look better, not worse, so Biden's inaccuracy appeared accidental, but we're noting it anyway. A White House official said that Biden's claim about "10 million doses a day" being available when he took office was meant to be a reference to the 10 million doses a week that were being sent to states as of the second week of Biden's term, up from 8.6 million a week when they took over.
The official said Biden's claim about "50 million doses" being available when he took office was a reference to the number of doses that had been distributed to states as of the end of January. That was less than two weeks into his term, but he could have been clearer on the time frame.
Biden's more dramatic claim here, that there was "nothing in the refrigerator" when he took office, has a solid factual basis, though Biden could again have been clearer about what he meant.
:shrug:Quote:
Anderson Cooper: (55:49)
You just talked to China’s president-
Joe Biden: (55:51)
Yes, for two hours.
Anderson Cooper: (55:52)
What about the Uyghurs? What about the [crosstalk 00:55:55]
Joe Biden: (55:55)
We must speak up for human rights. It’s who we are. My comment to him was, and I know him well, and he knows me well. We are two our conversation.
Anderson Cooper: (56:07)
You talked about this to him?
Joe Biden: (56:08)
I talked about this too, and that’s not so much refugee, but I talked about it. I said, “Look… Chinese leaders, if you know anything about Chinese history, it has always been the time when China has been victimized by the outer world is when they haven’t been unified at home. So the central… Vastly overstated. The central principle of Xi Jinping is that there must be a united tightly-controlled China. And he uses his rationale for the things he does based on that. I pointed out to him, no American president can be sustained as a president if he doesn’t reflect the values of the United States. And so the idea, I’m not going to speak out against what he’s doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uyghurs in Western mountains of China and Taiwan, the One-China policy by making it forceful.
Joe Biden: (57:04)
I said, and… He said… He gets it. Culturally, there are different norms at each country and their leaders are expected to follow. But my point was that when I came back from meeting with him and traveling 17,000 miles with him, when I was vice-president and he was the vice-president, and that’s how I got to know him so well, at the request of President Hu. Not a joke, not a joke. His predecessor, President Hu and President Obama wanted us to get to know one another because he was going to be the president. And I came back and said, “They’re going to end their one child policy, because they’re so xenophobic, they won’t let anybody else in, and more people are retired than working. How can they sustain economic growth when more people are retired?
Hooah, any word on the member-directed spending?
Expanding on what I noted in November, 2020 continued the trend of being an all-time low for split-ticket voting.
https://i.imgur.com/nAepJlx.gif
Not that I've heard, but to be honest I haven't been following it that closely- kinda taking a break from following politics in my free time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency