2 ms·

So my opinion is not one that many people necessarily agree with. Good. China needs to be knocked back a couple of pegs. We have been looking at nearly 1/6th o

by geuis 18y ago

So my opinion is not one that many people necessarily agree with. Good. China needs to be knocked back a couple of pegs. We have been looking at nearly 1/6th of the population of the world controlled by an incredibly repressive regime and most of their citizens aren't even aware of how restricted they are. I also look at this from the perspective of an engineer. How in the history of the world did we ever get to a point where it was cheaper to ship parts from the U.S. to China for assembly and then back to the U.S. than to do all of the manufacture here at home? The shear amount of energy that has been expended has been ridiculous. All of the cheap cash inflow into China has fueled the massive growth of very inefficient coal plants throughout the country by the thousands. The people in China have energy needs, but because of the disregard and corruption of the government they have been polluting themselves in the headlong rush to catch up to the Western world. The system of global trade that has emerged over the last 20-30 years is an extremely inefficient system that needs to undergo some serious refactoring. This will result in some major temporary economic disruption across the world, but we'll all be better for it in the end.

antiismist 18y ago
Because of containerization it is super-cheap to ship things. For example, the Emma Mærsk can ship 11,000+ containers and requires a crew of only 13 people. It is powered by a single diesel engine, and has special drag-reducing paint on it's hull. Once in port all of the cargo can be offloaded and on the move in under 24 hours - they don't sit in warehouses anymore. There is an army of things like this cruising the oceans, and that is why shipping is so inexpensive. So in fact the global system of trade at has emerged in the post WWII era is ultra-efficient and ultra-competitive.
drcode 18y ago
We won't be better in the end- All crude that can be extracted will still be extracted and burned in an engine. Furthermore, if China's economy goes downhill they'll never cut back on their coal burning. Also, they aren't polluting themselves because of "government corruption" but because they have no other avenue to economic growth. A democracy in their position would act no different. I'm not sure it helps anyone or anything if China "gets knocked back a couple of pegs." This isn't a game of cribbage where the US "wins" because the other guy's peg got knocked back a couple of notches. If they lose, we lose. The reason we have our high standard of living is because we've been mooching off the Chinese population's cheap labor for our consumables all this time. The only way the world will burn less oil is if there isn't enough left to burn- Not because the "nice guys" win and will chose to stop polluting... there are no "nice guys".
- helveticaman 18y ago
  China is a little too 1984 for my tastes. It's not as bad as North Korea, a literal 1984 society, but it's pretty awful.
  - michaelneale 18y ago
    Having traveled there a few times it doesn't "feel" that way (or perhaps it is hard to detect the surveillance !).
harshavr 18y ago
>>China needs to be knocked back a couple of pegs. We have been looking at nearly 1/6th of the population of the world controlled by an incredibly repressive regime For this point to have any validity, you'll need to have a strong argument that a smaller rate of economic growth will lead to more political freedom. This is not at all clear as the present regime has held onto power through many crises. On the other hand, an economic slowdown might very well mean that fewer people coming to the cities to look for a job will find one and an oil price price hike leading to an increase in the price of basic commodities might directly hit some of the poorest in a bad way. A significant humanitarian effect, without a political upheaval.

by geuis 18y ago

antiismist 18y ago

Because of containerization it is super-cheap to ship things. For example, the Emma Mærsk can ship 11,000+ containers and requires a crew of only 13 people. It is powered by a single diesel engine, and has special drag-reducing paint on it's hull. Once in port all of the cargo can be offloaded and on the move in under 24 hours - they don't sit in warehouses anymore. There is an army of things like this cruising the oceans, and that is why shipping is so inexpensive. So in fact the global system of trade at has emerged in the post WWII era is ultra-efficient and ultra-competitive.

drcode 18y ago

We won't be better in the end- All crude that can be extracted will still be extracted and burned in an engine. Furthermore, if China's economy goes downhill they'll never cut back on their coal burning. Also, they aren't polluting themselves because of "government corruption" but because they have no other avenue to economic growth. A democracy in their position would act no different. I'm not sure it helps anyone or anything if China "gets knocked back a couple of pegs." This isn't a game of cribbage where the US "wins" because the other guy's peg got knocked back a couple of notches. If they lose, we lose. The reason we have our high standard of living is because we've been mooching off the Chinese population's cheap labor for our consumables all this time. The only way the world will burn less oil is if there isn't enough left to burn- Not because the "nice guys" win and will chose to stop polluting... there are no "nice guys".

helveticaman 18y ago
China is a little too 1984 for my tastes. It's not as bad as North Korea, a literal 1984 society, but it's pretty awful.
- michaelneale 18y ago
  Having traveled there a few times it doesn't "feel" that way (or perhaps it is hard to detect the surveillance !).

harshavr 18y ago

>>China needs to be knocked back a couple of pegs. We have been looking at nearly 1/6th of the population of the world controlled by an incredibly repressive regime For this point to have any validity, you'll need to have a strong argument that a smaller rate of economic growth will lead to more political freedom. This is not at all clear as the present regime has held onto power through many crises. On the other hand, an economic slowdown might very well mean that fewer people coming to the cities to look for a job will find one and an oil price price hike leading to an increase in the price of basic commodities might directly hit some of the poorest in a bad way. A significant humanitarian effect, without a political upheaval.