Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: In b4 the cold war

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    167
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default In b4 the cold war

    So, history turned and the cold war with China has already began. The players are gaming up and most in the west have their eyes in the wrong direction.

    Plus, I want to meet my dual. I doubt it will happen, my duals would never find themselves on this webpage..maybe that is why I enjoy it so much...?

  2. #2
    literally too angry to die Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,257
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    We should just reopen the rare earth mines in silicon valley (its namesake) and then maybe we could start building electronics again.

  3. #3
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    12,230
    Mentioned
    1236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    We should just reopen the rare earth mines in silicon valley (its namesake) and then maybe we could start building electronics again.
    We could do that, since the rare earth elements are actually available to us there, but they would be more expensive than getting the materials from China, which means we’d have less money left over to buy everything else.

  4. #4
    Haikus SGF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ┌П┐(ಠ_ಠ)
    TIM
    LSI-H™
    Posts
    2,169
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    /o aye aye captain! Veteran of the great meme war reporting fer duty!
    Already learning mandarin sir!

  5. #5
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    SLE-C 8w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,364
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    We could do that, since the rare earth elements are actually available to us there, but they would be more expensive than getting the materials from China, which means we’d have less money left over to buy everything else.
    Could still be worth it long-term even if immediate profits go down.

  6. #6
    Karbonkel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    The Netherlands
    TIM
    EII-Ne So/Sx 479
    Posts
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There wont be a conventional war anyway between USA and China as both countries know it will lead to a total distruction of themselfs. The strat is now to just buy other countries like China does and to hit eachother economicly.

  7. #7
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,215
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rare Earth elements are actually abundant in the Earth's crust, and are especially abundant in the USA. The world's largest operation was once in Mountain Pass, California.

    What China dominates is labour costs, as well as Rare Earth processing and supply chains—built up and subsidized by its state-owned economy—and their transformation into finished products (like permanent magnets). Individual capitalists and investors can't compete against a Stalinist economy.

  8. #8
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    12,230
    Mentioned
    1236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Rare Earth elements are actually abundant in the Earth's crust, and are especially abundant in the USA. The world's largest operation was once in Mountain Pass, California.

    What China dominates is labour costs, as well as Rare Earth processing and supply chains—built up and subsidized by its state-owned economy—and their transformation into finished products (like permanent magnets). Individual capitalists and investors can't compete against a Stalinist economy.
    Actually, a capitalist economy can easily compete against a Stalinist economy if the laws which govern the marketplace are set up correctly.

  9. #9
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,215
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Actually, a capitalist economy can easily compete against a Stalinist economy if the laws which govern the marketplace are set up correctly.
    Could you explain this? I find it hard to believe that any handful of atomized corporations could compete against an entire state that isn't accountable to investors. China can reorient supply chains on a whim, lower its prices (at a loss) to destroy the competition, and build any amount of necessary infrastructure (at a loss) to ensure the smooth flow of its operations.

  10. #10
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    3,334
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    Actually, a capitalist economy can easily compete against a Stalinist economy if the laws which govern the marketplace are set up correctly.
    I don’t like @xerxe’s use of “Stalinist” (“Stalinism” isn’t a coherent strain of thought, but was the state theology of the USSR, and the Chinese economy isn’t as tightly controlled by the state as in the USSR); “state capitalist” is a better term, I think. But if you look at the growth of the economy of the USSR or post-revolution China, you’d be hard-pressed to find any comparable free-market economy, save maybe South Korea when foreign money was being pumped into it as a bulwark against China (and even then it’s not really what an example of what people call a “free market”).

    Incidentally, what xerxe called “Stalinist” economies are capitalist. The confusion comes because in these systems, to a greater degree than e.g. the US, individual capitalists are pushed aside. The state instead assumes their role in the capitalist system.

  11. #11
    Tzuyu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    466
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The US foreign policy focus on regime type undermines its own supposed moral justifications. Instead of actually addressing issues in other countries on a targeted basis, each issue is instead used to build a case for the 'illegitimacy' of the regime, merely creating hostility. The US isn't interested in the substance of 'human rights violations', it's interested in human rights as a RHETORIC for gaining support for its eternal war on its ideological rivals. If it was interested in the 'violations', it wouldn't attach them to such expansive claims.

    Just being clear, China and US are both shit and there’s no reason to support either of them.




  12. #12
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,215
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    I don’t like @xerxe’s use of “Stalinist” (“Stalinism” isn’t a coherent strain of thought, but was the state theology of the USSR, and the Chinese economy isn’t as tightly controlled by the state as in the USSR); “state capitalist” is a better term, I think. But if you look at the growth of the economy of the USSR or post-revolution China, you’d be hard-pressed to find any comparable free-market economy, save maybe South Korea when foreign money was being pumped into it as a bulwark against China (and even then it’s not really what an example of what people call a “free market”).

    Incidentally, what xerxe called “Stalinist” economies are capitalist. The confusion comes because in these systems, to a greater degree than e.g. the US, individual capitalists are pushed aside. The state instead assumes their role in the capitalist system.
    I was using the term 'Stalinist' loosely, but thanks for the concision correction. I meant a state that's capable of mobilizing vast quantities of resources in order to industrialize quickly and from scratch. I agree that China's economic system is better classified as state-capitalist.
    Last edited by xerx; 09-26-2020 at 01:37 AM. Reason: was really tired when I wrote the previous, unedited post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •