james22 Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 6 hours ago, WFF said: I have had discussions with people that privately question whether democracy really a good thing? Should everyone really have a vote, because a lot of people can’t be hold accountable for their vote. Yeesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 (edited) 13 hours ago, cubsfan said: Of course democracy is a good thing! IT's a great thing. It's far from perfect. It's not free. And it always has to be worked on - why would a great thing like democracy be easy?? To take a vote or a voice away from anyone is a grave injustice. And like the views of the communists - when you start thinking your voice is more important than others - you're headed to totalitarianism. A philosopher king leader party who enables superb outcomes is IMO preferred compared to a flawed democracy that enables inferior outcomes. Outcomes matter the most, not the process towards the outcomes. Also, democracies run into the threat of becoming capital oligarchies as can be seen in the west, the government is sold to the highest bidder with the deepest pockets and the economy stalls in benefit to the very wealthy. This is an edge the CCP has and why the West is so afraid of them. China will and does have a more competitive and more efficient industrial system, that can produce products for cheaper because public infrastructure is not privatized and monopolized by the financial sector but belongs to the government, banks, energy etc. They are turning more towards SOE owned key infrastructure because they see that the financial sector just wants to monopolize these assets which makes them a lot of money but labor suffers making the overall economy less efficient. Musk said it already, China is a powerhouse next level and nobody can beat them, energy will be a lot cheaper, factories are all next to each other, short supply chains, huge talent pool etc. So who will be happier, the person living in an almost fully automated, highly technological very wealthy society that cares about lifting everybody up in the "navel of the earth" or the highly privatized deindustrialized society that belongs to the financial, insurance and real estate sector that owns the government and monopolies stalling overall growth and development? Edited April 13 by Luca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/trends-in-income-inequality-and-its-impact-on-economic-growth_5jxrjncwxv6j-en It follows that policies to reduce income inequalities should not only be pursued to improve social outcomes but also to sustain long-term growth. Redistribution policies via taxes and transfers are a key tool to ensure the benefits of growth are more broadly distributed and the results suggest they need not be expected to undermine growth. But it is also important to promote equality of opportunity in access to and quality of education. This implies a focus on families with children and youths – as this is when decisions about human capital accumulation are made -- promoting employment for disadvantaged groups through active labour market policies, childcare supports and in-work benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 Just now, Luca said: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/trends-in-income-inequality-and-its-impact-on-economic-growth_5jxrjncwxv6j-en It follows that policies to reduce income inequalities should not only be pursued to improve social outcomes but also to sustain long-term growth. Redistribution policies via taxes and transfers are a key tool to ensure the benefits of growth are more broadly distributed and the results suggest they need not be expected to undermine growth. But it is also important to promote equality of opportunity in access to and quality of education. This implies a focus on families with children and youths – as this is when decisions about human capital accumulation are made -- promoting employment for disadvantaged groups through active labour market policies, childcare supports and in-work benefits. China follows basic economic research by OECD policy advise to generate MORE growth for their overall economy but LESS growth for monopolies and concentrated markets. But nobody wants any redistribution in the US and both republic. and democr. basically run the same elite clientele political program, ruin the power of labor, don't regulate monopolies and concentrated markets, sell essential infrastructure to private companies that charge a lot and make their donors rich. Fair enough! Then China engages in the opposite policies which makes them stronger, their businesses stronger and the West and their elite hate it of course. For the average labor worker, this should not be of any concern but the media sector manipulates everybody to believe this is their concern too although it again only affects less than 5% of the population. They can hit china with as much tariffs as they want but they will cut their life supply off since they factories are not in their home countries. Yes, maybe they can reestablish colonies in India or other SEA countries and maybe they will obey the US and don't develop themselves so that's maybe a bet. Still, China is already far enough to be self-sufficient in their own country and their partners are also very wealthy with resources. Russia did the right move, nothing to gain with Europe and US, better focus on China. It will be interesting how India will behave, the best would be to stay very neutral and take the best of both worlds while driving their own high-quality development. Very interesting times, Xi is right to say that there are changes happening not seen in 100 years: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/22/xi-tells-putin-of-changes-not-seen-for-100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 Interestingly, Putin was also not the neoliberal subservient cog the Russian and US oligarchs thought he would be, he has the russian billionaires under tight control and they are afraid of him, we will see what happens with russia but I wouldn't count them out, especially now with close ties to China. Maybe with china they can accelerate a new form of growth too the coming decades although putin is getting old and maybe after the new guy is up they reorientate themselves, US will 100% follow that closely and fund US supportive governments there as we all know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 3 minutes ago, Luca said: For the average labor worker, this should not be of any concern but the media sector manipulates everybody to believe this is their concern too although it again only affects less than 5% of the population. The 70% bottom of the barrel workers who own almost nothing, have mostly debt and maybe a few bucks in a mutual fund will make the same under a Chinese burger king and will also have to pay in the Chinese amazon bottles. The only thing that matters is the people who own the bonds, equity/shares in those companies that will lose wealth, of course the media only focusses on what matters to them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 So if you have a huge amount of money invested in US stocks then you need the US favored policies, obviously since i invested in china i am also betting on their horse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 (edited) 19 hours ago, WFF said: I have had discussions with people that privately question whether democracy really a good thing? Should everyone really have a vote, because a lot of people can’t be hold accountable for their vote. These types of discussions involve much wishful thinking, turning a blind eye to the actions of non-democratic nations, or reading history with blind folds on. There are things Democratic nations could do better or are weak at. However theorising about what system is better is simplistic. There are many different types of governments and leadership throughout history such and I think we can reasonably infer what outcome we can expect from a particular type of government. So instead of theory it’s better to look at the data and simply ask ‘compared to what?’ If you think x is better compared to y - OK, what does the data say. Edited April 13 by Sweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 (edited) 7 hours ago, Luca said: A philosopher king leader party who enables superb outcomes is IMO preferred compared to a flawed democracy that enables inferior outcomes. Outcomes matter the most, not the process towards the outcomes. Also, democracies run into the threat of becoming capital oligarchies as can be seen in the west, the government is sold to the highest bidder with the deepest pockets and the economy stalls in benefit to the very wealthy. The problem is too often your philosopher king morphs into a tyrant king and there is no way to get him out. Being able to choose your leader and the rules you want to live by is is an outcome too, the most important one arguably, and it’s flipping important one in the long run. Democracies can select the ideas and people which govern them, in your alternative you can’t. That is why in the long run democracies have produced better outcomes on the whole, because it’s an open competition of ideas. Your idea that the West have ‘capital oligarchies’ is not something I recognise. Please evidence it. Edited April 13 by Sweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulti Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 I think the whole argument boils down to having a government system with plenty of checks and balances ; where power is not centralized and the rights of the people are paramount. https://www.learnancientrome.com/what-were-checks-and-balances-in-ancient-rome/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hektor Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 1 hour ago, Sweet said: The problem is too often your philosopher king morphs into a tyrant king and there is no way to get him out. Being able to choose your leader and the rules you want to live by is is an outcome too, the most important one arguable, and it’s flipping important one in the long run. Democracies can select the ideas and people who government them, in your alternative you can’t. That is why in the long run democracies have produced better outcomes on the whole, because it’s an open competition of ideas. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubsfan Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 1 hour ago, Ulti said: I think the whole argument boils down to having a government system with plenty of checks and balances ; where power is not centralized and the rights of the people are paramount. https://www.learnancientrome.com/what-were-checks-and-balances-in-ancient-rome/ ^^^ This. I'm amazed how Luca likes to gaslight us on how wonderful China is. Especially now that a tyrant has assumed control once again. There are more people that live in poverty in China than live in the entire United States. China is an economic miracle after the killing 60 million of their own citizens through totalitarianism. Now of course, they are drifting backward again. I see no Westerners rushing to go back to China and live after the horrible recent crackdown and suspension of liberties the last few years. President Xi will have to go to extraordinary lengths to attract Westerners again. Not impossible, but difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 3 hours ago, Sweet said: The problem is too often your philosopher king morphs into a tyrant king and there is no way to get him out. In fact that happens in capitalistic "democratic" systems where the ruler just buys himself the government. 3 hours ago, Sweet said: Being able to choose your leader and the rules you want to live by is is an outcome too, the most important one arguably, and it’s flipping important one in the long run. Democracies can select the ideas and people who government them, in your alternative you can’t. That is why in the long run democracies have produced better outcomes on the whole, because it’s an open competition of ideas. Your idea that the West have ‘capital oligarchies’ is not something I recognise. Please evidence it. Attached you find a well researched presenting you the flaws: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B# Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 24 minutes ago, cubsfan said: ^^^ This. I'm amazed how Luca likes to gaslight us on how wonderful China is. Especially now that a tyrant has assumed control once again. There are more people that live in poverty in China than live in the entire United States. Because they industrialized a lot later, rural development is very important to the CCP as visible by their releases and Xis talking. 24 minutes ago, cubsfan said: China is an economic miracle after the killing 60 million of their own citizens through totalitarianism. Now of course, they are drifting backward again. Yadda yadda yadda, you could make similar comments about the US killing the natives or Germany with the nazis, every country has dark sides. 24 minutes ago, cubsfan said: I see no Westerners rushing to go back to China and live after the horrible recent crackdown and suspension of liberties the last few years. President Xi will have to go to extraordinary lengths to attract Westerners again. Not impossible, but difficult. Okay, people want to leave China, they wont develop etc its over we all know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 I will stop posting in this thread from now on, I have written about 400 posts about why I think the view on China is not accurate and why that creates an investing opportunity, it's the same people commenting and disagreeing over and over again and calling me gaslighting, having an agenda etc, at this point our views are clear. I also think the board has pretty much no interest in China as an investing opportunity. My differing view has been made clear over many posts and I am repeating myself, others can post more about why they think China is going to shit etc and you will get more space for your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubsfan Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 Most of us understand the actual threat that China is to its neighbors and the West. Concentration camps for Muslims, producing/killing millions with fentanyl, destroying Hong Kong, threatening Taiwan, wrecking economies by releasing killer viruses (accidentally or not), etc. The bloom is off the China rose - I for one, will be happy when China decides to be a good neighbor instead of an expansionary power. They are clearly a global threat that needs to be held in check. President Xi has taken the country in a new direction - and that is sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulti Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 26 minutes ago, Luca said: My differing view has been made clear over many posts Personally , I enjoy reading your differing view...Its what makes the world go around...As for investing in China, I'm always trying to learn. https://www.nbim.no/en/publications/podcast/alibaba-co-founder-and-chair-china-jack-ma-ai-and-baseball/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james22 Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 7 hours ago, Luca said: A philosopher king leader party who enables superb outcomes is IMO preferred compared to a flawed democracy that enables inferior outcomes. Outcomes matter the most, not the process towards the outcomes. Yeesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulti Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosopher-king Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 (edited) 5 hours ago, Hektor said: +1 I really need to proofread my posts a lot more. How you managed to understand what I meant with all those errors I’ve no idea lol. Edited the original. Edited April 13 by Sweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharperDingaan Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 (edited) On 4/13/2024 at 10:16 AM, Luca said: I will stop posting in this thread from now on. There is nothing wrong with dissenting opinion, and it is to be encouraged; but there's also reality. China is a communist country, and for the western investor, property rights are about 'might is right'. You have them only while China needs the West more than the West needs China, after that .... not so much. If you were unsure of that, look no further than both Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Participation also doesn't mean investment in China. China is well known for over-developing mines in 3rd world countries, and using the resultant surplus global over supply to force down the commodities price for decades. When the host nation objects, the mine and rail/port labour is simply replaced with expats and the commodity proceeds processed through the Chinese banking system. Object some more, and you're replaced with civil war. Age-old fair game .... but it's the real meaning of 'belt and road'. However; every former Colonial Power has learnt the hard way, that eventually the natives take back the assets, and the asset strip is a time limited engagement. Changing the face of the colonialist doesn't change the eventual end-game. It eventually catches up. China has made amazing progress over the decades, but it's been very much along the failed 'Asian Tiger' model. Same as Japan; burn the population pyramid to do it, finance it with extraordinary credit expansion, and allow the wealth to build up in highly leveraged real estate. Thing is ... you run out of babies 'cause everyone is working stupid hours, the real estate depends on ongoing ability to repay, and the whole thing tanks when the increasingly limited Chinese labour pool eventually ages out. As with Japan, interest rates plummet/stay there for years, and the whole world exploits the dirt cheap money. Do you really want to be the lender in this, or would you much rather be the borrower? Then add to it the dictators playbook; when things aren't going well at home, distract attention by 'creating an enemy' that everyone can be rallied around .... and in a communist country, there is only one 'leader'. If you're going to take this kind of risk, there are a great many other places with better returns/unit risk in which to do it. Not what many want to hear. SD Edited April 14 by SharperDingaan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 (edited) 4 hours ago, Luca said: In fact that happens in capitalistic "democratic" systems where the ruler just buys himself the government. Attached you find a well researched presenting you the flaws: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B# Luca, respectfully, I don’t know what you are talking about. ‘Buys the government’ - really? In the US there is undoubtedly too much money in politics, way too much, but ‘buy the government’ - I don’t see that. There have been several rebuttals of that paper which I could find online which argue the analysis and conclusions are flawed. Nevertheless I agree with the paper that rich influential people have an outsized impact on government policy, that is obvious, but that’s far away from saying it’s a capitalist oligarchy. The money and lobbying in the US does need addressed. I disagree that ordinary people have no impact. This paper was published before the 2016 election of Trump and the Brexit vote in the UK which categorically destroys such an idea. In both instances the vast majority of influence groups and rich people took the side which opposed Trump and Brexit and they lost. Another recent example is the referendum defeat in Ireland. Edited April 13 by Sweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardGibbons Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 I mean, even the Luca's "China's raising everyone up rather than just helping rich people" argument doesn't actually align with reality. Pretty well every democratic country on earth has a lower Gini coefficient than China. My guess is what he thinks of as evidence is actually propaganda, and he's ignoring the actual outcomes of the last 150 years of authoritarianism and communism. It's pretty amazing to me that managed economies have been tried since Marx, and not one has even had close to the astounding beneficial results that arise from liberal free-market economies. And even more amazing that many people are so eager to completely ignore that evidence in favor of a story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hektor Posted April 13 Share Posted April 13 6 hours ago, Sweet said: How you managed to understand what I meant with all those errors I’ve no idea lol. I might have read your edited version. Not sure what the edits were @Sweet, but what you wrote made sense to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libs Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 (edited) On 4/13/2024 at 12:27 PM, RichardGibbons said: It's pretty amazing to me that managed economies have been tried since Marx, and not one has even had close to the astounding beneficial results that arise from liberal free-market economies. And even more amazing that many people are so eager to completely ignore that evidence in favor of a story. Bingo. As a friend of mine says, "wow, Marxism is the unluckiest system; if only some country could finally pick the right people to try it out!" Karl Marx inflicted untold misery upon the world. Edited April 15 by Libs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now