China Thread

#428
#428
I get the whole "You've just won 10 trillion dollars, and your borders are now relatively secure (as opposed to the rest of your history), so now you can go gallivanting around like an All-Star" sweepstakes, but I just don't get it. I really don't.

There's no given that this is going to turn into a South China Sea situation, but China is playing with fire. When things go your way, you get rich, you get powerful, you basically get to do your own thing in your own country (under a US-established system), you just let it go.

Although it defies common sense, I think the only sensible explanation is that China, like most countries in Asia (the US and Germany, due to the latter's past, are typically the only ones that get media attention on race matters/issues), is extremely ethnocentric and prideful, therefore, can't stomach the status quo no matter how much it benefits them.

Get Ready: China Could Build New Artificial Islands Near India | The National Interest Blog
 
#429
#429
volprof said:
I get the whole "You've just won 10 trillion dollars, and your borders are now relatively secure (as opposed to the rest of your history), so now you can go gallivanting around like an All-Star" sweepstakes, but I just don't get it. I really don't.

There's no given that this is going to turn into a South China Sea situation, but China is playing with fire. When things go your way, you get rich, you get powerful, you basically get to do your own thing in your own country (under a US-established system), you just let it go.

Although it defies common sense, I think the only sensible explanation is that China, like most countries in Asia (the US and Germany, due to the latter's past, are typically the only ones that get media attention on race matters/issues), is extremely ethnocentric and prideful, therefore, can't stomach the status quo no matter how much it benefits them.

Get Ready: China Could Build New Artificial Islands Near India | The National Interest Blog
Click to expand...

this isn't quite the same. 1 they are actual islands that they are expanding. 2. they are working with the nation that owns them, instead of expanding them to take over the "islands" 3. I don't see how china could militarize this without heavy agreement from Maldives, a few billion should do that.

that billion dollar floor hopefully has a limit. 1 billion gives you 1 square mile you want 2 square miles that is 2 billion. even then there is easy exploitation from any nation not just China.
 
#430
#430
LouderVol said:
this isn't quite the same. 1 they are actual islands that they are expanding. 2. they are working with the nation that owns them, instead of expanding them to take over the "islands" 3. I don't see how china could militarize this without heavy agreement from Maldives, a few billion should do that.

that billion dollar floor hopefully has a limit. 1 billion gives you 1 square mile you want 2 square miles that is 2 billion. even then there is easy exploitation from any nation not just China.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. This is not quite the South China Sea, at least not yet (and probably never). There, it's China see, China do, sort of approach, but here China should be much more cautious.

From what I've gathered, the Chinese think the South China Sea the equivalent of the Caribbean to Americans. This is a fundamental mistake. While the analogies seem too rich to ignore, the South China Sea is not the Caribbean. When the US established the Monroe approach, the Western Hemisphere was under the influence of the European imperial system. This meant that Western Hemisphere resources (and the shipping lanes they required to get back to Europe or elsewhere) were predominantly used for specific imperial purposes - i.e., Spain looked out for Spain, France for France, Britain for Britain, etc.

This isn't the way East Asia and the South China Sea work today. Admittedly, it has been dominated by the US for some 60 to 70 years, and I understand the natural disinclination towards what's perceived as an "outsider" ruling the roost, but the system benefits all, equally. It's not an imperial system, despite naive, uninformed criticism that it is.

If the system works, then let it. China evidently is not satisfied, so they're going to buck it eventually. But, as history tells us, individuals, peoples, and nations often do very stupid things.

China is a 3,000 year old civilization, and to have lasted that long, you have to have done something right. But it's also made its share of idiotic decisions and mistakes during that time as well. The Mongol conquest only the most obvious and major one.
 
Last edited:
#433
#433
Velo Vol said:
What is the system?
Click to expand...

Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#434
#434
volprof said:
Yes, I agree. This is not quite the South China Sea, at least not yet (and probably never). There, it's China see, China do, sort of approach, but here China should be much more cautious.

From what I've gathered, the Chinese think the South China Sea the equivalent of the Caribbean to Americans. This is a fundamental mistake. While the analogies seem too rich to ignore, the South China Sea is not the Caribbean. When the US established the Monroe approach, the Western Hemisphere was under the influence of the European imperial system. This meant that Western Hemisphere resources (and the shipping lanes they required to get back to Europe or elsewhere) were predominantly used for specific imperial purposes - i.e., Spain looked out for Spain, France for France, Britain for Britain, etc.

This isn't the way East Asia and the South China Sea work today. Admittedly, it has been dominated by the US for some 60 to 70 years, and I understand the natural disinclination towards what's perceived as an "outsider" ruling the roost, but the system benefits all, equally. It's not an imperial system, despite naive, uninformed criticism that it is.

If the system works, then let it. China evidently is not satisfied, so they're going to buck it eventually. But, as history tells us, individuals, peoples, and nations often do very stupid things.

China is a 3,000 year old civilization, and to have lasted that long, you have to have done something right. But it's also made its share of idiotic decisions and mistakes during that time as well. The Mongol conquest only the most obvious and major one.
Click to expand...

how did the chinese mess up the mongol invasion? I admittedly know very little specifics about it.
 
#435
#435
LouderVol said:
how did the chinese mess up the mongol invasion? I admittedly know very little specifics about it.
Click to expand...

It's a nearly 200-300 year long history, but let's just say the following for Cliff's Notes version:

1. The Great Wall is a magnificent structure. A good tourist destination. It didn't always serve its purpose though.

2. During Kublai's reign (as just one of Genghis's grandsons, but who was focused mostly upon the Far East), the Mongols dominated China. In fact, one of the Chinese dynasties, the Yuan (sounds familiar, doesn't it?), was a Mongol ruling of China, having taken control over from the Song (after the latter's defeat to the Mongols). Although debatable to some (probably only ethnic Han), Kublai may very well be considered one of China's official emperors. He died with that title regardless of the debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty
 
#436
#436
volprof said:
It's a nearly 200-300 year long history, but let's just say the following for Cliff's Notes version:

1. The Great Wall is a magnificent structure. A good tourist destination. It didn't always serve its purpose though.

2. During Kublai's reign (as just one of Genghis's grandsons, but who was focused mostly upon the Far East), the Mongols dominated China. In fact, one of the Chinese dynasties, the Yuan (sounds familiar, doesn't it?), was a Mongol ruling of China, having taken control over from the Song (after the latter's defeat to the Mongols). Although debatable to some (probably only ethnic Han), Kublai may very well be considered one of China's official emperors. He died with that title regardless of the debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty
Click to expand...

Kublai is a great character in Marco Polo. I can't wait for season 2.
 
#438
#438
volprof said:
It's a nearly 200-300 year long history, but let's just say the following for Cliff's Notes version:

1. The Great Wall is a magnificent structure. A good tourist destination. It didn't always serve its purpose though.

2. During Kublai's reign (as just one of Genghis's grandsons, but who was focused mostly upon the Far East), the Mongols dominated China. In fact, one of the Chinese dynasties, the Yuan (sounds familiar, doesn't it?), was a Mongol ruling of China, having taken control over from the Song (after the latter's defeat to the Mongols). Although debatable to some (probably only ethnic Han), Kublai may very well be considered one of China's official emperors. He died with that title regardless of the debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty
Click to expand...

doesn't explain how they messed it up. They fell to a power that was conquering a large percentage of the world. figured they might have been a "someone left the door open" or some Chinese ruler thought it would be a good idea to have the Mongols defeat their enemies for them type of thing.

i knew there was a mongol leader at some point but didn't know/remember specifics. the more you know.
 
#439
#439
PowerT83 said:
China sets up first unmanned factory; all processes are operated by robots - The Economic Times on Mobile
Click to expand...

Each line has an automatic belt with just three workers who are just responsible for checking lines and monitoring. A few months ago, it required 650 workers to finish this process.
Click to expand...

Maybe someday we'll have a political discussion about automation eliminating jobs in this county. But for now I guess we'll keep blaming it on health care insurance.
 
#440
#440
Velo Vol said:
Maybe someday we'll have a political discussion about automation eliminating jobs in this county. But for now I guess we'll keep blaming it on health care insurance.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but this really is the crux of the job debate, and it often is the most ignored for some reason. Technology has completely changed the game.

I started a thread that was a disaster, partly due to my own doing, a couple weeks ago on the minimum wage. But that's really not the issue. It's mostly a diversion, a mere band aid, even, assuming it's actually worth a damn.

The real issue is technology taking so many jobs from un-educated/low-educated, under-skilled/low-skilled workers (a huge percentage of the population, albeit probably a minority of the labor force). We used to have good paying jobs for these people in manufacturing, but between outsourcing and automation, those are now largely gone. And while there's some talk of a return (now that shipping costs are so expensive, outsourcing is becoming more impractical), that industry is never going to return here the way it was before due to the other factor of the equation - automation.

And now, this past week, I learn that some fast food restaurants are starting to adopt self-service kiosk automated food service that requires no workers.

I'll be honest, I don't know what the hell the low-skilled, low-educated are going to do anymore for jobs.

Some say that they ought to learn skills/get educated in tech and robotics, but, even so, just how many robotic engineers or what-have-you do they think we need to ensure a factory or a food service station keeps running? I would wager only a handful at most, and even that handful could probably operate and maintain multiple of the above at any given time. It's simply not a solution.

I guess it's going to take the crash of the economy and the entitlement system (which more and more of these workers or would-be workers now seek, because them working has become nearly meaningless - and it's not necessarily all their fault, at least generally speaking) to make us realize that outsourcing and automation aren't always cure-alls although our 2 dollar cheap piece of **** Made in China at the self-service kiosk in Wal-Mart sure those feel good while we're buying it.
 
#441
#441
red butler said:
Kublai is a great character in Marco Polo. I can't wait for season 2.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a good show. It's interesting though that the title character protagonist is actually the most boring character on the entire series. You typically don't see that.

LouderVol said:
doesn't explain how they messed it up. They fell to a power that was conquering a large percentage of the world. figured they might have been a "someone left the door open" or some Chinese ruler thought it would be a good idea to have the Mongols defeat their enemies for them type of thing.

i knew there was a mongol leader at some point but didn't know/remember specifics. the more you know.
Click to expand...

I'm no Mongol/Far East historian, but the failure of the Chinese state to effectively combat the Mongols is probably due to any (and possibly all) of the following factors:

1. Political in-fighting (as you alluded to as a possibility), which is something autocratic systems, despite their capacity to get things done very rapidly, often fall susceptible to.

2. Successive series of invasions/wars that weakened the central state, not only in the North but possibly to the South as well (like in Indochina, for instance).

3. Poor strategic decisions/planning/military leadership. The Mongols adopted a meritocratic system very early with Genghis and which proved highly effective, whereas the Chinese were most likely still hampered by entitlements, genealogies, political favors, etc.

4. Mongol ability to co-opt allies. After Genghis's union of the Mongol tribes, most of his combatants eventually became non-Mongol allies. Mostly Turkic peoples.

5. Speaking of allies and military strategy, the Mongols used the medieval equivalent of blitzkrieg strategy, whereas the Chinese were still largely a siege army. This may have played a factor on the wide open steppes of the Chinese North.

6. This last one is mere speculation but something always worth considering: weather/agriculture. If there were poor crop yielding years following in succession for Chinese agricultural base (as opposed to the Mongol's nomadic/herding base), then it could have weakened the Chinese state. The current issue of National Geographic features an article on Genghis, and one of the most current theses concerning his meteoric, rapid rise is that, in the years he was originally consolidating power, the Mongol steppe experienced unusually favorable weather and grasslands growth, allowing for more herd and horse production and for better relations between Mongol clans/tribes.
 
#448
#448
Velo Vol said:
The fact that China and Kazakhstan were the finalists tells you how attractive hosting the winter games has become.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much longer the Winter Games will last. Not everyone can steal anywhere between 30 to 50 billion dollars from the state coffers (or unknown sources) just to make their regime look good like some can.

It may be (although highly unlikely) that eventually the Winter Games will only be able to survive in perpetuity by being hosted solely by Russia and China, perhaps on a rotating basis.

It's sad, because I like the Winter Games, but I don't think they'll last more than another couple of decades at the most. They were a modern creation anyhow, so I guess they'll go the way of the US worker - obsolete.
 
#449
#449
From a cost standpoint, it would make sense just to have the games at only one or two locations, rendering it unnecessary to build new venues every four years.
 
#450
#450
tumscalcium said:
No.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what the incentive is for spending that kind of money. Hell, ATL is already calling Turner Field obsolete and it was built for the Olympics there... Georgia Dome is considered obsolete, also.

Greece took a bath in all of the spending they did for their Olympics. Montreal never got their retractable roof to close in Olympic Stadium.

Seems like a big waste of money for minimal, short term benefit (if there is a benefit).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top