5 ms·

> The democratic, federal west simply cannot compete And this is why western nations should not allow China unilateral trade freedoms until it's government add

> The democratic, federal west simply cannot compete And this is why western nations should not allow China unilateral trade freedoms until it's government addresses the human rights of its own citizens. To do so, imperils the progress human rights (esp. workers' rights) within western nations. While China's ability to marshal it's resources in awe-inspiring, I'm certain no average worker/citizen in the west wants their freedoms to go retrograde... until it's too late and it's the only way to get a job.

MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
"While China lifted an unprecedented amount of people out of poverty and can acomplish things that we were once able to accomplish but now have become unthinkable, and the west encounters collapse of birth rates, trillions in new dept and thus inflation of assets like housing, takeover of education, academia and Big Corp by woke zealots, and transformation of High Trust into Low Trust societies due to unchecked immigration and lax law enforcement, somehow China should follow the west's lead."
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  I'm not sure there's a coherent argument here for me to follow. But the centre of my argument is: if you can't open criticize a government, you have little recourse if it decides to put your interests last in the name of, say, moving some economic lever that profits people in wealth and power. The western world has funnelled much of its money into a China, and this has given China the economic resources to uplift its own citizens out of poverty. What it hasn't given them is the right to criticize the government, or workers' rights that much of the western world takes for granted (Foxconn being an example of one of the better workplaces). If you live in the west, and you like your lifestyle, you ought to be worried about what's coming, and for the US, regression of workers' rights in the name of being globally competitive is already in full swing. If you had the option of being able to challenge your government in a democracy, or a centrally managed autocracy that might throw you in jail, which do you choose?
  - MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
    There is a contradiction in your argument, thought I'd point it out: > if you can't open criticize a government, you have little recourse if it decides to put your interests last in the name of, say, moving some economic lever that profits people in wealth and power > The western world has funnelled much of its money into a China, and this has given China the economic resources to uplift its own citizens out of poverty We had "liberal democracy" in the last decades. This has lead to the outcome of outsourcing most of western manufacturing to China and handing them our trade secrets, because that was the game-theoretic optimum of the ideology of free trade, equality and universalism. If liberal democracy means putting the people's interest first, why have the policies of the last 30 years actively worked against the interests of the average american employee, and benefitted mostly capital? Once you take the question serious, you will find some interesting hypotheses, some of which will be hard to empirically argue against. I will not go into those. Note that this is not an endorsement of Chinese-style autocratism, but meant to challenge preconceived notions on what the current state of affairs is actually like. I detest state overreach, centralism and the absence of liberty, and therefore I would detest Chinese-style government. But standing where we are, right now, it takes a lot of chuzpah to claim that our system is working as intended, meaning it is effective, just, leads to prosperity and has the interest of its people in mind.
    - h0l0cube 5y ago
      I'd posit that much of the back sliding of social outcomes for western citizens is that their nations now have to compete with places like China that were once 'developing', but are now technologically advanced, and they can also permit factories to use their populations as slaves. The US and even other countries like Australia, UK, France etc. are willingly voting in governments that dismantle social policies and workers' rights for 'more jobs'. Without protectionist policies, there's no way to reconcile the increased labour costs in western nations, let alone personal liberties. If China is permitted to ascend without improving the rights of its people, that's the country we will have to match.
      - MrBuddyCasino 5y ago

MrBuddyCasino 5y ago

"While China lifted an unprecedented amount of people out of poverty and can acomplish things that we were once able to accomplish but now have become unthinkable, and the west encounters collapse of birth rates, trillions in new dept and thus inflation of assets like housing, takeover of education, academia and Big Corp by woke zealots, and transformation of High Trust into Low Trust societies due to unchecked immigration and lax law enforcement, somehow China should follow the west's lead."

h0l0cube 5y ago
I'm not sure there's a coherent argument here for me to follow. But the centre of my argument is: if you can't open criticize a government, you have little recourse if it decides to put your interests last in the name of, say, moving some economic lever that profits people in wealth and power. The western world has funnelled much of its money into a China, and this has given China the economic resources to uplift its own citizens out of poverty. What it hasn't given them is the right to criticize the government, or workers' rights that much of the western world takes for granted (Foxconn being an example of one of the better workplaces). If you live in the west, and you like your lifestyle, you ought to be worried about what's coming, and for the US, regression of workers' rights in the name of being globally competitive is already in full swing. If you had the option of being able to challenge your government in a democracy, or a centrally managed autocracy that might throw you in jail, which do you choose?
- MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
  There is a contradiction in your argument, thought I'd point it out: > if you can't open criticize a government, you have little recourse if it decides to put your interests last in the name of, say, moving some economic lever that profits people in wealth and power > The western world has funnelled much of its money into a China, and this has given China the economic resources to uplift its own citizens out of poverty We had "liberal democracy" in the last decades. This has lead to the outcome of outsourcing most of western manufacturing to China and handing them our trade secrets, because that was the game-theoretic optimum of the ideology of free trade, equality and universalism. If liberal democracy means putting the people's interest first, why have the policies of the last 30 years actively worked against the interests of the average american employee, and benefitted mostly capital? Once you take the question serious, you will find some interesting hypotheses, some of which will be hard to empirically argue against. I will not go into those. Note that this is not an endorsement of Chinese-style autocratism, but meant to challenge preconceived notions on what the current state of affairs is actually like. I detest state overreach, centralism and the absence of liberty, and therefore I would detest Chinese-style government. But standing where we are, right now, it takes a lot of chuzpah to claim that our system is working as intended, meaning it is effective, just, leads to prosperity and has the interest of its people in mind.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    I'd posit that much of the back sliding of social outcomes for western citizens is that their nations now have to compete with places like China that were once 'developing', but are now technologically advanced, and they can also permit factories to use their populations as slaves. The US and even other countries like Australia, UK, France etc. are willingly voting in governments that dismantle social policies and workers' rights for 'more jobs'. Without protectionist policies, there's no way to reconcile the increased labour costs in western nations, let alone personal liberties. If China is permitted to ascend without improving the rights of its people, that's the country we will have to match.
    - MrBuddyCasino 5y ago