Chinese Manufacturing

[PLAYER57832]

Nope. "Basic need' is pretty clearly defined, actually. Again, I will refer you to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (known to you by some other name, apparently).

If someone is hungry, TRULY hungry, or cold, etc, then attending to those needs occupy one's entire focus.

But that is utterly irrelevant when talking about US politics, most world politics, in fact, because even the poorest here are not truly in that desperate of straights.

It's literally impossible to keep you on topic, isn't it?

That IS the topic. It is why your heirarchy does not really matter in the way you implied it would. We are not at the bottom of it (or top, whatever). That matters a LOT.

And... the truth is that it is actually not entirely true. People CAN be made to look beyond themselves, often do for the good of the whole. That is exactly what good leaders do. (Ghandi, Martin Luther King, etc).

Right now, though, the "leaders" are really corporations. They do a great job of promoting products and policies that support their businesses. We need REAL leaders who represent and put forward the good of the whole. They don't seem to exist right now.

China, to contrast is successful because they have just that. I absolutely disdain their mode of operation on many fronts. However, it cannot be denied that they have successfully rallied the people to put up with some pretty nasty stuff in order to advance their society as a whole.. and it is doing just that. They have been incredibly successful while the US has been involved in basically gutting itself.

[BigBallinStalin]

China, to contrast is successful because they have just that. I absolutely disdain their mode of operation on many fronts. However, it cannot be denied that they have successfully rallied the people to put up with some pretty nasty stuff in order to advance their society as a whole.. and it is doing just that. They have been incredibly successful while the US has been involved in basically gutting itself.

How did the economic well-being of US citizens grow without using the same means employed by the Chinese?

[PLAYER57832]

China, to contrast is successful because they have just that. I absolutely disdain their mode of operation on many fronts. However, it cannot be denied that they have successfully rallied the people to put up with some pretty nasty stuff in order to advance their society as a whole.. and it is doing just that. They have been incredibly successful while the US has been involved in basically gutting itself.

How did the economic well-being of US citizens grow without using the same means employed by the Chinese?

We had an open environment ready to exploit.

Also, the Chinese methods of control would not work here because we begin from a far different base. Our view of the individual and that of China are incredibly different. But that, too, is at least partially becuase of the physical differences in the location. Our country is made up of "societal rejects" from other countries, and we further sent rejects off into the wilderness. (note that "reject" in this context means "not able to live successfully within the current society".. mountain men versus the Boston businessman). We were, in a sense, founded by mountain men and homesteading pioneers. China.. was not. (at least not in recent times).

[Woodruff]

Nope. "Basic need' is pretty clearly defined, actually. Again, I will refer you to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (known to you by some other name, apparently).

If someone is hungry, TRULY hungry, or cold, etc, then attending to those needs occupy one's entire focus.

But that is utterly irrelevant when talking about US politics, most world politics, in fact, because even the poorest here are not truly in that desperate of straights.

It's literally impossible to keep you on topic, isn't it?

That IS the topic. It is why your heirarchy does not really matter in the way you implied it would. We are not at the bottom of it (or top, whatever). That matters a LOT.

Jesus, Christ...look, I know you're a smart person...that much is obvious. Are you just unable to focus for some reason? This tangent of the thread (thus, THE TOPIC between you and I, because I did not become involved until you made your unreasonable response) started quite specifically with your response to BaronVonPwn's statement (which you have provided absolutely no response to that takes into account that individual's perspective) of:

Regardless, how do you expect them to improve their environment (or even care about it) when they already struggle to survive? I don't think the rural farmer going to the big city is going to take to "I'm sorry we can't give you a better paying job as that would make your polluted river more polluted" argument to well.

So you claim that the individual's attempt to survive is irrelevant? Because that appears to be what you're saying, particularly when you make statements such as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs does not really matter. And I wasn't implying anything...I was making a very clear and specific statement about it.

So, should I just give up on your ability to hold a consistent conversation, or would you like to actually try to do so?

[BigBallinStalin]

China, to contrast is successful because they have just that. I absolutely disdain their mode of operation on many fronts. However, it cannot be denied that they have successfully rallied the people to put up with some pretty nasty stuff in order to advance their society as a whole.. and it is doing just that. They have been incredibly successful while the US has been involved in basically gutting itself.

How did the economic well-being of US citizens grow without using the same means employed by the Chinese?

We had an open environment ready to exploit.

Why was the US environment more open? (something to do with political institutions).

It doesn't follow that the Chinese method works. There was plenty of resources for their people to manipulate in the 1950s to the 1970s. Simply lifting the restrictions on economic freedom led to their vast growth toward better economic well-being. The government itself doesn't strongly direct this process because the individuals, once allowed to act, do the heavy lifting. Therefore, attributing all this to their state is erroneous.

It's not like the people had to be rallied in order to increase real growth. The Chinese state for decades rallied the people toward increasing real growth (via a socialist economic institution, which miserably failed). The Chinese already had that ability to prosper economically; the political institutions over the Chinese previously constrained that course of action.

Also, the Chinese methods of control would not work here because we begin from a far different base. Our view of the individual and that of China are incredibly different. But that, too, is at least partially becuase of the physical differences in the location. Our country is made up of "societal rejects" from other countries, and we further sent rejects off into the wilderness. (note that "reject" in this context means "not able to live successfully within the current society".. mountain men versus the Boston businessman). We were, in a sense, founded by mountain men and homesteading pioneers. China.. was not. (at least not in recent times).

I don't place much faith in your generalizations of entire groups of people, and how that would support your implied conclusion that the high level of state intervention in China's economy led to all their economic well-being (which is comparatively small).

The Chinese, like any other human being, pursue courses of action which they value more so than others. Their choices are limited by constraints placed upon them by institutions (political, social, economic, legal). If the political institution discourages the basic tenets of capitalism (i.e. property rights, prices, and profit and loss), then it's no surprise that economic well-being will stagnate, decrease, or grow very very slowly. Once that political institution steps toward a more capitalist economic institution, then the economic well-being is enabled to grow.

All the Chinese government had to do from the 1970s and 1980s was step out of the way. So, it's not these "Chinese methods of control" which led to economic prosperity for the Chinese. It was the Chinese state's loosening of control which led to economic prosperity.