Would bashing China solve all the problems of the United States

[SUZNV + 1,197]

1 hour ago, BradleyPNW said:

Sorry, I wasn't clear but I am happy to clarify: Putin's motivation to help Donald was, "Hillary is smart and screws things up for Putin. Donald is a moron, easily rolled by Putin."

Also, countries do not always interfere in their enemy's elections. That an American president would allow a shit-hole country like Russia to interfere in America's elections is one of the many examples of Donald's anti-Americanism. 

Your Flynn timeline is jumbled. 1st, Flynn talked to Kislyak. Later, the FBI interviewed Flynn and asked him if he talked to Kislyak about sanctions. Flynn responded no. Thus, a US NSA was guilty of lying to the FBI. Flynn also lied to VP Pence. Donald Trump stated he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI and Pence. The judge in Flynn's case gave him ample opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. Flynn said he was fully aware of all the implications of pleading guilty. Plus, you know, the FBI had a transcript of Flynn's conversation with Kislyak in their hands so it would be hard for Flynn to win a case where he was caught red handed. 

As I already explained, Obamagate is not only crackpot conspiracy theory but also evidence of Trump's anti-American posture. Trump has zero problem attacking US national security services if he thinks for second that it will help him personally. Obamagate is a perfect example of him doing just that. 

How was lying to FBI and Pence has anything related to Trump? At that time once Flynn pleaded guilty, it is normal to fire him. Or you think should Trump keep Flynn then and you would still complain about that?  So do you believe FBI spy on Trump election team or not?  Why Obama can say he know nothing about that but Trump cannot say the same about Flynn?

Downside National Security Council is within President power. Would you complain if the CEO downside the number of managers, his employee? You accused people for their legal actions without any evidence, just like the fail impeachment, and that is why I suggest you take Laws101. What do you feel if people accuse your action without any evidence, purely from opinion like you do? Benefit of the doubt is the fundamental of any modern justice system. At least Trump honors that than you and the mainstream and the Dem. Why should anyone complain about Mccarthyism then if people follow your radical standard? Hate Trump is your excuse?

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by SUZNV

[ralfy + 55]

23 hours ago, 0R0 said:

The deep automation will come later, first the opportunity to onshore using suddenly cheap labor. Suddenly extra low rates, Many of the machines that would be necessary are not there yet. E.g. in textiles there was a prototype automated T shirt machine put into production just a couple of years ago. Chemicals and pharma are just facing regulatory costs in the US,which will be swept away  with the right political pressure. The robots for more complex tasks will come in later as the designs mature. Additive manufacturing produces complex parts that were previously (and largely still are assembled from several pieces and fasteners. The missing thing is the scale for the input materials and larger machines. The designs are in place and tried and true at work.

The US and Mexico have a younger consumption age demographic than the rest of the developed world and China. There will be the demand for the production in NAFTA. Where it disappears is in a very big way, China, Japan (ongoing for 2 decades), Korea Germany, Italy Spain the Tiger economies of SE Asia. Those are all old populations without a large Millennial generation to pick up the slack in demand.

Finally, it is the large productivity of the few that makes the fluff service sector and inefficient retail  employ so many people, as they serve the demand from the high productivity folks and thus create more demand for their products.

I am not sure what the energy returns have to do with it.

Businesses invest in automation because they want more productivity at lower labor costs. But the returns on investments are gained only if what is produced is purchased, and that can only take place with more jobs and higher wages, both of which entail higher labor costs.

Also, costs don't involve only labor but also materials. The cost for that is kept low with increasing energy returns, and that's not what we're seeing because of physical limitations in the biosphere. In short, we're seeing diminishing returns, and that can't be reversed by automation and increasing credit. If any, both take place given the assumption of the opposite.

The U.S. has a younger population because of increased immigration. Mexico has the same because, together with the rest of the developing world, population momentum is negating lower birth rates. At the same time, around 70 pct of that same world population earns less than $10 a day and want to earn more. Given that, lack of demand is the least of your worries. At least one additional earth will be needed to meet just the basic needs of the current population. To meet middle class conveniences which is presumed by those who invest in automation, more than that. To meet a population that will reach 10 billion based on momentum plus middle class conveniences, around three more earths. And that's supposed to be met with diminishing returns.

Finally, the reason why energy returns are connected to that is because production does not take place magically. Even with robots, minerals still need to be extracted together with oil and other resources, manufactured, and even shipped. With that, oil is critical together with high energy returns: the amount of energy gained in exchange for what is invested.

The energy returns needed for what you call "fluff" and high productivity is many times higher than that of pre-industrial civilization. Throw in a population that's many times larger plus increasing energy, resource demand per capita, and diminishing returns, and higher still.

 

 

[ralfy + 55]

10 hours ago, 0R0 said:

I blame the Communist bandits and the spreaders of their narrative of genocidal murderous enslavement as beneficial to humanity and somehow justified. I have no issues with China or the Chinese, but sympathy for their condition and pity that they have not overthrown the CCP. A Nazi is a national socialist who believes their race is superior and their country is the center of the universe. Who practice fascist economic models where government decides who gets to allocate capital and to what purpose.

You are supporting the CCP, defending and promoting their false narratives and hiding their malignant aspirations. You are a TOOL. It is the CCP that is the war monger, it just chooses to conduct its war as quietly and underhandedly as possible without direct confrontation. The world is now completely aware of what China has done, how they did so and for what purpose, and are readying themselves to be rid of CCP controlled China in their trade and industrial systems.

The Communist bandits have stolen China's future, created conditions for starvation and will be helpless to control the economic collapse of the unsustainable system they created. The only  concern of the CCP is to remain in power indefinitely, for their children to inherit the country, as they are the defacto  aristocracy imposed on China and have just anointed Xi to be their emperor. 

Do yourself and your people a favor and help them be rid of the CCP. Throw a CCP official out the window.

That's the same CCP that has been working with Wall Street-backed U.S., which is the main warmonger and arms dealer of the world.

 

[frankfurter + 562]

to quote ORO....
"A Nazi is a national socialist who believes their race is superior and their country is the center of the universe. Who practice fascist economic models where government decides who gets to allocate capital and to what purpose."
FACTS: 

(1) Not one but all POTUS over the past 30 years have stood before the world to proclaim the USA is the exceptional nation. Obama stated "America makes the rules".

(2) In 2008, the USA printed large sums of currency to bail out the too big to fail. Since then, constant QE. Now, another $4 trillion. Who received and will receive this?  Who makes the decision?  Answer; the cabal of Whitehouse, Treasury, Fed Reserve. 

Thus, by your own words, you reveal you and your govt are Nazis, who practise fascist economic models. 

[canadas canadas + 136]

9 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Why do you state this? Wasn't neoliberalism a thing before the WTO entry? Not attacking, curious on your point of view.

Hasn't the U.S. first been trading with the PRC since 1979?

Edited June 2, 2020 by canadas canadas

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

3 hours ago, canadas canadas said:

Hasn't the U.S. first been trading with the PRC since 1979?

Yes

[0R0 + 6,251]

7 hours ago, frankfurter said:

to quote ORO....
"A Nazi is a national socialist who believes their race is superior and their country is the center of the universe. Who practice fascist economic models where government decides who gets to allocate capital and to what purpose."
FACTS: 

(1) Not one but all POTUS over the past 30 years have stood before the world to proclaim the USA is the exceptional nation. Obama stated "America makes the rules".

(2) In 2008, the USA printed large sums of currency to bail out the too big to fail. Since then, constant QE. Now, another $4 trillion. Who received and will receive this?  Who makes the decision?  Answer; the cabal of Whitehouse, Treasury, Fed Reserve. 

Thus, by your own words, you reveal you and your govt are Nazis, who practise fascist economic models. 

There is a difference between recognizing your position as a polyglot nation being the sole superpower and the CCP attitude of the inherent supremacy of the Han Chinese and China being the center of the universe and DEMANDING that the other nations of the world revere it.

The 2008 financial crisis was largely the doing of China, by externalization of its monetary inflation by accumulating obscene levels of reserves, posting the bonds as collateral for commodity contracts and thus forcing the ECB and Federal Reserve to tighten. Then the PBOC pushed the largest bailout package ever seen in history (including the US NOW) with a monetary expansion greater than that of the ECB, Fed, BOJ and everyone else put together during 2008-2012.

The US bailout was not directed towards particular institutions, unlike that of China, who had their SOE businesses and SOE banks targeted. The US unclogged the banking system and used market operations to buy their junk credit.

The idea that the tiny CCP membership structuring an entire country to serve themselves and to preclude criticism, not to speak of defensive actions by their people against the CCP membership sucking their lifeblood.

 

[frankfurter + 562]

26 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

There is a difference between recognizing your position as a polyglot nation being the sole superpower and the CCP attitude of the inherent supremacy of the Han Chinese and China being the center of the universe and DEMANDING that the other nations of the world revere it.

The 2008 financial crisis was largely the doing of China, by externalization of its monetary inflation by accumulating obscene levels of reserves, posting the bonds as collateral for commodity contracts and thus forcing the ECB and Federal Reserve to tighten. Then the PBOC pushed the largest bailout package ever seen in history (including the US NOW) with a monetary expansion greater than that of the ECB, Fed, BOJ and everyone else put together during 2008-2012.

The US bailout was not directed towards particular institutions, unlike that of China, who had their SOE businesses and SOE banks targeted. The US unclogged the banking system and used market operations to buy their junk credit.

The idea that the tiny CCP membership structuring an entire country to serve themselves and to preclude criticism, not to speak of defensive actions by their people against the CCP membership sucking their lifeblood.

 

bro, you need help. you are in a deep, profound state of denial and indoctrination. like Trump and his cabal, you cannot accept the faults and psychotics of your leaders.  you blame China for everything.  this is psychotic behaviour. open your eyes and ears to see and hear what is around you.  your country is burning, and not because of China.

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

11 hours ago, ralfy said:

Businesses invest in automation because they want more productivity at lower labor costs. But the returns on investments are gained only if what is produced is purchased, and that can only take place with more jobs and higher wages, both of which entail higher labor costs.

Also, costs don't involve only labor but also materials. The cost for that is kept low with increasing energy returns, and that's not what we're seeing because of physical limitations in the biosphere. In short, we're seeing diminishing returns, and that can't be reversed by automation and increasing credit. If any, both take place given the assumption of the opposite.

The U.S. has a younger population because of increased immigration. Mexico has the same because, together with the rest of the developing world, population momentum is negating lower birth rates. At the same time, around 70 pct of that same world population earns less than $10 a day and want to earn more. Given that, lack of demand is the least of your worries. At least one additional earth will be needed to meet just the basic needs of the current population. To meet middle class conveniences which is presumed by those who invest in automation, more than that. To meet a population that will reach 10 billion based on momentum plus middle class conveniences, around three more earths. And that's supposed to be met with diminishing returns.

Finally, the reason why energy returns are connected to that is because production does not take place magically. Even with robots, minerals still need to be extracted together with oil and other resources, manufactured, and even shipped. With that, oil is critical together with high energy returns: the amount of energy gained in exchange for what is invested.

The energy returns needed for what you call "fluff" and high productivity is many times higher than that of pre-industrial civilization. Throw in a population that's many times larger plus increasing energy, resource demand per capita, and diminishing returns, and higher still.

 

There is no population momenturm, there will never be 10 billion people on the planet. We have passed peak babies globally a couple of years ago. In OECD+China, that milestone was passed 50 years ago, except the US. As the major commodity consuming groups, they will not be consuming any more than they are now. In EU and China, "green" energy infrastructure is the main marginal consumer of commodities and energy. Peak population is less than 20 years hence. The drop in population in Europe, SE Asia tigers, Korea and Japan as well as China will be substantial, enduring, and drop commodity demand in total, unless India, Indonesia and Philippines make an entirely out of character commitment to free markets and development, which they have not done in any extent and show no intention of doing. Thus their meager commodity consumption, even growing as it was, will not reach a level of substituting for the loss of demand from the West and China. Africa seems terminally incapable of sustained development.

Energy productivity of production has increased in all advanced countries except China.

Your income calculation is incorrect. High productivity leads to low prices that will end up with similar levels of consumption. That is how it worked in agriculture in the early 20th century, and in industry in the late 20th century, in Technology around the millennium, and in retail operations and office work now.

The US has a younger population because of birthrates at 4 million for millennials vs. 3+ million in the baby boom, as well as immigration.

Your analysis requires a revamp with actual facts rather than "conventional wisdom". This is not the 1970s.

[0R0 + 6,251]

49 minutes ago, frankfurter said:

bro, you need help. you are in a deep, profound state of denial and indoctrination. like Trump and his cabal, you cannot accept the faults and psychotics of your leaders.  you blame China for everything.  this is psychotic behaviour. open your eyes and ears to see and hear what is around you.  your country is burning, and not because of China.

 

The country is not burning.

The central city demographies retain the same problems they have always had. The overbearing police practices, and the economic disadvantages they have suffered. Unfortunately, their leadership, largely elected by these same people who are rioting, practiced hard lockdowns that decimated their livelihoods, and used brutal police practices to enforce them. Not unlike some Chinese practices. These will accelerate the substantial and ongoing evacuation of business from major city centers, leaving behind what will look like  refugee camps.  Largely because of the local politics. It reflects nothing of the US as a whole, who, unlike China, don't live in the cities, and as of now, don't work there either.

As to the main economic pressure on these people protesting, just as in Hong Kong, it is the loss making competition from subsidized Chinese industries , particularly SOEs, literally stealing market share and shutting down their Western counterparts. Thus China has a large share in the economic devastation of working class people in the US and in Europe.

It would be worthwhile to have a dedicated Chinese SOE tariffs, funding blockage to SOEs in the international credit markets, and eventually a freezing of international assets of the CCP membership and SOEs.

There is nothing going wrong on the planet that China's CCP leadership did not have a hand in.

I suggest that you drop your Ministry of Propaganda narrative, because it carries no weight, people scoff and dismiss it. At most it makes them angry at China.

Do yourself and your people a great benefit and throw a CCP official out the window.

 

 

[ralfy + 55]

On 6/3/2020 at 12:49 AM, 0R0 said:

There is no population momenturm, there will never be 10 billion people on the planet. We have passed peak babies globally a couple of years ago. In OECD+China, that milestone was passed 50 years ago, except the US. As the major commodity consuming groups, they will not be consuming any more than they are now. In EU and China, "green" energy infrastructure is the main marginal consumer of commodities and energy. Peak population is less than 20 years hence. The drop in population in Europe, SE Asia tigers, Korea and Japan as well as China will be substantial, enduring, and drop commodity demand in total, unless India, Indonesia and Philippines make an entirely out of character commitment to free markets and development, which they have not done in any extent and show no intention of doing. Thus their meager commodity consumption, even growing as it was, will not reach a level of substituting for the loss of demand from the West and China. Africa seems terminally incapable of sustained development.

Energy productivity of production has increased in all advanced countries except China.

Your income calculation is incorrect. High productivity leads to low prices that will end up with similar levels of consumption. That is how it worked in agriculture in the early 20th century, and in industry in the late 20th century, in Technology around the millennium, and in retail operations and office work now.

The US has a younger population because of birthrates at 4 million for millennials vs. 3+ million in the baby boom, as well as immigration.

Your analysis requires a revamp with actual facts rather than "conventional wisdom". This is not the 1970s.

There is population momentum, which is why the world population continues to increase. The UN and others estimate that the population will grow to 10 billion by 2040-2050.

OECD+China is not the world.

OECD+China is not the only major consuming group. There's the rest of BRICS plus forty emerging markets.

There is no decrease in population in SE Asian nations, South Asia, the Middle East, South America, and Africa.

There is no drop in commodity demand worldwide. If any, whatever demand destruction is taking place in the U.S., Japan, and EU is being offset by the rest of the world:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

The world middle class is set to to rise to almost 5 billion in ten years. The amount of resources and energy needed to meet its demand will be more than what's available.

Energy productivity is offset by energy consumption. That's because in capitalist economies investments in productivity are made in exchange for increasing consumption of what is produced. Otherwise, there is no point in investing in productivity!

The total amount of energy currently being used is 20 TW. In order to meet just basic needs of the current population, we will need 50 TW. IN order to meet basic needs of a growing population, we will need at least 75 TW. To meet middle class conveniences, six times our current consumption.

My income calculation comes from the World Bank.

High productivity leads to low prices if population doesn't go up. It went by by a factor of three during the past six decades, and ironically because productivity went up.

The U.S. has a young population because of immigrants, and many of them come from developing economies. That not only strengthens my argument it also counters your claim that world population won't go up.

 

 

 

 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

8 hours ago, ralfy said:

There is population momentum, which is why the world population continues to increase. The UN and others estimate that the population will grow to 10 billion by 2040-2050.

OECD+China is not the world.

OECD+China is not the only major consuming group. There's the rest of BRICS plus forty emerging markets.

There is no decrease in population in SE Asian nations, South Asia, the Middle East, South America, and Africa.

There is no drop in commodity demand worldwide. If any, whatever demand destruction is taking place in the U.S., Japan, and EU is being offset by the rest of the world:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

The world middle class is set to to rise to almost 5 billion in ten years. The amount of resources and energy needed to meet its demand will be more than what's available.

Energy productivity is offset by energy consumption. That's because in capitalist economies investments in productivity are made in exchange for increasing consumption of what is produced. Otherwise, there is no point in investing in productivity!

The total amount of energy currently being used is 20 TW. In order to meet just basic needs of the current population, we will need 50 TW. IN order to meet basic needs of a growing population, we will need at least 75 TW. To meet middle class conveniences, six times our current consumption.

My income calculation comes from the World Bank.

High productivity leads to low prices if population doesn't go up. It went by by a factor of three during the past six decades, and ironically because productivity went up.

The U.S. has a young population because of immigrants, and many of them come from developing economies. That not only strengthens my argument it also counters your claim that world population won't go up.

UN estimates are a decade out of date.

There is current research summarized in the book "empty planet" the authors have interviews and lectures on U tube. Get info, not ancient speculation from fear mongers.

The economic analysis about the EM emerging middle classes advancing is out of date as well. They use export growth models to advance. There is no export market - not to an advanced world that is awash in excess capacity and is too old to be consuming. It will not happen. SE Asia is demographically inverted already. Only Indonesia and Philippines have a young cohort bigger than their retired and pre-retirement (saving) generations. Beware of straight lining old time series into the future when all that drove the trend has reversed.

There may be up to 8 billion people ultimately. But the number of people in subsequent generations will be smaller globally. The avenues for suboptimal geographies to obtain the capital for industrialization - how the successful EMs became NICs - is via foreign investment and production for exports. That comes from the savings of the developed world, including China, Those are in the process of peaking out, while overall developed market demand for imports has already peaked. There is no more fuel to drive the trend. Thus the compensating demand from Frontier markets is not going to continue filling in the declines from the developed world as they move up the income ladder. 

The only big hopes to see a large wave of growth is in the industrialization of India, Indonesia Angola and Nigeria and secondarily the Philippines. There will be growth there, but not on the same order of magnitude as the decline of demand from high income aged countries.

 

[ralfy + 55]

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

UN estimates are a decade out of date.

There is current research summarized in the book "empty planet" the authors have interviews and lectures on U tube. Get info, not ancient speculation from fear mongers.

The economic analysis about the EM emerging middle classes advancing is out of date as well. They use export growth models to advance. There is no export market - not to an advanced world that is awash in excess capacity and is too old to be consuming. It will not happen. SE Asia is demographically inverted already. Only Indonesia and Philippines have a young cohort bigger than their retired and pre-retirement (saving) generations. Beware of straight lining old time series into the future when all that drove the trend has reversed.

There may be up to 8 billion people ultimately. But the number of people in subsequent generations will be smaller globally. The avenues for suboptimal geographies to obtain the capital for industrialization - how the successful EMs became NICs - is via foreign investment and production for exports. That comes from the savings of the developed world, including China, Those are in the process of peaking out, while overall developed market demand for imports has already peaked. There is no more fuel to drive the trend. Thus the compensating demand from Frontier markets is not going to continue filling in the declines from the developed world as they move up the income ladder. 

The only big hopes to see a large wave of growth is in the industrialization of India, Indonesia Angola and Nigeria and secondarily the Philippines. There will be growth there, but not on the same order of magnitude as the decline of demand from high income aged countries.

 

Here's a comprehensive review of the book:

https://overpopulation-project.com/review-of-empty-planet-the-shock-of-global-population-decline-by-darrell-bricker-and-john-ibbitson-part-1/

and the conclusion:

Quote

Empty Planet follows a simplistic theory of the origin of fertility decline: “Indisputably, the most important factor is urbanization” (p.18). They also emphasise women’s empowerment and education but in a chain of causation these are made secondary because “urbanization leads to the empowerment of women, which leads to a decline in fertility rate” (p.88). Elsewhere other factors are mentioned but urbanization is the primary driver: “As a society urbanizes, and women gain more power, the ties of kin, the power of organized religion, and the dominance of men declines” (p.59). Since the UN forecasts global urbanization rising to 68% by 2050, they think fertility decline will be faster than expected. The theory is flawed. One clue is where fertility decline began, in France not in Britain which lagged by 80 years despite being more urban. To their credit,14 Bricker and Ibbitson admit: “In France, oddly, fertility declines were already underway by the late 1700s” due to changing ideas (p.61). Tim Dyson observes “when the French began to employ birth control in the 1790s, only about a quarter of France’s population lived in towns” but “when the English turned to birth control in the 1870s around three-quarters of the population lived in towns”.15

The conclusion is that the UN 2017 forecast is more accurate.

Increasing consumption in emerging markets won't be driven by exports to industrialized economies but by foreign direct investment from the latter leading to industrialization and increasing consumption for the former, which is what has been taking place the last two decades:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

Given that, the problem isn't population aging but the lack of resources and energy plus environmental damage.

In fact, both problems are in place even for the current population. The amount of energy needed to industrialize countries in South Asia, the rest of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and the rest of South America will be twice the current consumption.

 

 

 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

3 minutes ago, ralfy said:

Here's a comprehensive review of the book:

https://overpopulation-project.com/review-of-empty-planet-the-shock-of-global-population-decline-by-darrell-bricker-and-john-ibbitson-part-1/

and the conclusion:

The conclusion is that the UN 2017 forecast is more accurate.

Increasing consumption in emerging markets won't be driven by exports to industrialized economies but by foreign direct investment from the latter leading to industrialization and increasing consumption for the former, which is what has been taking place the last two decades:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

Given that, the problem isn't population aging but the lack of resources and energy plus environmental damage.

In fact, both problems are in place even for the current population. The amount of energy needed to industrialize countries in South Asia, the rest of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and the rest of South America will be twice the current consumption.

 

 

 

 

The UN report is based on the previous global census which was completed in 2010 or thereabouts, and data from several countries was delayed till 2015 when a full data set, more or less, was finally available. By tracking actual current data over the last few decades, Bricker and Ibbitson show that the trend is not fit with a straight demographic reproduction rate but is fit with a declining one. Their accounting for urbanization and women's empowerment via cell phones as a cause is an explanation of the observation and a justification for expecting the same declining trend exhibited by more urbanized countries to repeat in those who's urbanization is still underway. The critique of the explanation takes nothing away from the observation from current data - data that countries have not yet submitted to the UN. Their collation of birth  data from around the world shows that we have dropped below reproduction number of 2 a couple of years ago and have already passed "peak babies" globally. 

The expansion of China is not an example of what development economics looks like in "normal" countries. China's one child policy and lack of retirement systems has forced people to save aggressively for retirement, which allowed them to inflate their credit system to absurd levels around 5X GDP. China accounts for 85% of monetary expansion globally from 2000-2019. The Fed, ECB and BOJ interventions are minuscule by comparison. Its money supply is 2X GDP and growing rapidly as GDP was stunted by CV19.

The BBC article is a classic straight lining forecast that skips all the reasons for the unique growth spurt of SE Asia and then China and sticking that square peg onto the round holes of India and the other development "opportunities", drawing parallel growth trajectories that have no reason to happen. Besides which, it is an old estimate.

The forward industrial economy investments are headed for higher return opportunities within the handful of developed economies and their immediate neighbors that still have a viable demographic structure and can be incorporated into truncated but reliable supply chains. The investment is not going to continue into marginally viable countries having only a young population to offer. The available investment flows from EU US and developed E and SE Asia is peaking and will decline from here as their boomer's savings years turn to drawing on their retirement funds. China's savings leak out into the world in the form of subsidized products sold at or even below their production costs in order to extract capital through the tight capital controls.

 

[ralfy + 55]

22 hours ago, 0R0 said:

The UN report is based on the previous global census which was completed in 2010 or thereabouts, and data from several countries was delayed till 2015 when a full data set, more or less, was finally available. By tracking actual current data over the last few decades, Bricker and Ibbitson show that the trend is not fit with a straight demographic reproduction rate but is fit with a declining one. Their accounting for urbanization and women's empowerment via cell phones as a cause is an explanation of the observation and a justification for expecting the same declining trend exhibited by more urbanized countries to repeat in those who's urbanization is still underway. The critique of the explanation takes nothing away from the observation from current data - data that countries have not yet submitted to the UN. Their collation of birth  data from around the world shows that we have dropped below reproduction number of 2 a couple of years ago and have already passed "peak babies" globally. 

The expansion of China is not an example of what development economics looks like in "normal" countries. China's one child policy and lack of retirement systems has forced people to save aggressively for retirement, which allowed them to inflate their credit system to absurd levels around 5X GDP. China accounts for 85% of monetary expansion globally from 2000-2019. The Fed, ECB and BOJ interventions are minuscule by comparison. Its money supply is 2X GDP and growing rapidly as GDP was stunted by CV19.

The BBC article is a classic straight lining forecast that skips all the reasons for the unique growth spurt of SE Asia and then China and sticking that square peg onto the round holes of India and the other development "opportunities", drawing parallel growth trajectories that have no reason to happen. Besides which, it is an old estimate.

The forward industrial economy investments are headed for higher return opportunities within the handful of developed economies and their immediate neighbors that still have a viable demographic structure and can be incorporated into truncated but reliable supply chains. The investment is not going to continue into marginally viable countries having only a young population to offer. The available investment flows from EU US and developed E and SE Asia is peaking and will decline from here as their boomer's savings years turn to drawing on their retirement funds. China's savings leak out into the world in the form of subsidized products sold at or even below their production costs in order to extract capital through the tight capital controls.

 

According to the review, the main point of the book is that SSP1 (rapid development) will take place because of urbanization and modernization in most of the world, which consists of developing economies. And yet you point out in your posts that rapid development is also outdated. In which case, the main point of the book is wrong.

Also, the claim that investments consists primarily of "boomers' savings" and that investments will peak is utter nonsense. For starters, most funds do not involve such savings and are generated by multinational finance corporations, which is why they are not tied to population aging. Also, the very nature of banks is that they exist to lend.

 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

On 6/1/2020 at 7:55 PM, SUZNV said:

How was lying to FBI and Pence has anything related to Trump? At that time once Flynn pleaded guilty, it is normal to fire him. Or you think should Trump keep Flynn then and you would still complain about that?  So do you believe FBI spy on Trump election team or not?  Why Obama can say he know nothing about that but Trump cannot say the same about Flynn?

Downside National Security Council is within President power. Would you complain if the CEO downside the number of managers, his employee? You accused people for their legal actions without any evidence, just like the fail impeachment, and that is why I suggest you take Laws101. What do you feel if people accuse your action without any evidence, purely from opinion like you do? Benefit of the doubt is the fundamental of any modern justice system. At least Trump honors that than you and the mainstream and the Dem. Why should anyone complain about Mccarthyism then if people follow your radical standard? Hate Trump is your excuse

I have never taken Laws101. And you clearly haven't taken Laws101 so it's a bit hypocritical for you to suggest I should take Laws101. Rather than both of us taking Laws101 I think a better solution is to read the court appointed amicus curiae written by people who did take Laws101 for the Flynn case. (Court appointed, not prosecution.) 
 

Quote

"The Department of Justice has a solemn responsibility to prosecute this case—like every other case—without fear or favor and, to quote the Department’s motto, solely “on behalf of justice.” It has abdicated that responsibility through a gross abuse of prosecutorial power, attempting to provide special treatment to a favored friend and political ally of the President of the United States." - John Gleeson https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qOr66B3TquXTyo-wGL1qaC6T_DRvSKDT/view

 

[SUZNV + 1,197]

9 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

I have never taken Laws101. And you clearly haven't taken Laws101 so it's a bit hypocritical for you to suggest I should take Laws101. Rather than both of us taking Laws101 I think a better solution is to read the court appointed amicus curiae written by people who did take Laws101 for the Flynn case. (Court appointed, not prosecution.) 
 

 

Laws101 is for first year and with the basics, knowledge doesn't need to go through court but it is a systematical way to learn thing so I would like to recommend it for you. It can be an elective paper for any discipline and not for laws degree only so please don't assume all my papers are STEM and no laws 101 included because it is not relevant. The very basic concept is  "innocent until proven guilty" not "innocent until pleaded guilty" and you seem confuse about it and keep repeat what media or someone told you to. Any innocent can plead guilty, just the opposite of most guilty will say they are innocent until proven that they are not. Anything besides the 2 states of laws are opinions so any one complete laws 101 can say whatever they want without any meaning in laws, so countless people complete laws 101 can say Flynn was innocent or otherwise. Again, in laws there are only 2 states: innocent or proven guilty and Flynn was never proven guilty but go to prison and that is the whole point. Go to prison or plead guilty does not mean you are proven guilty, search for "plea bargain". It is just a mechanism to stop wasting defendant and prosecutor or judge's resources or pending it forever (much costly for defendant and may take longer than time in prison itself). 

And funny enough his case was dropped after declassifying, which means more transparent to public eyes and you keep holding what was less transparent to public for your preference.

So please save your breath for repeating any of your or someone else's opinion that you have mentioned, which I doubt anyone didn't know and follow my advice in case you need it later on.

Edited June 24, 2020 by SUZNV

[BradleyPNW + 282]

11 hours ago, SUZNV said:

Laws101 is for first year and with the basics, knowledge doesn't need to go through court but it is a systematical way to learn thing so I would like to recommend it for you. It can be an elective paper for any discipline and not for laws degree only so please don't assume all my papers are STEM and no laws 101 included because it is not relevant. The very basic concept is  "innocent until proven guilty" not "innocent until pleaded guilty" and you seem confuse about it and keep repeat what media or someone told you to. Any innocent can plead guilty, just the opposite of most guilty will say they are innocent until proven that they are not. Anything besides the 2 states of laws are opinions so any one complete laws 101 can say whatever they want without any meaning in laws, so countless people complete laws 101 can say Flynn was innocent or otherwise. Again, in laws there are only 2 states: innocent or proven guilty and Flynn was never proven guilty but go to prison and that is the whole point. Go to prison or plead guilty does not mean you are proven guilty, search for "plea bargain". It is just a mechanism to stop wasting defendant and prosecutor or judge's resources or pending it forever (much costly for defendant and may take longer than time in prison itself). 

And funny enough his case was dropped after declassifying, which means more transparent to public eyes and you keep holding what was less transparent to public for your preference.

So please save your breath for repeating any of your or someone else's opinion that you have mentioned, which I doubt anyone didn't know and follow my advice in case you need it later on.

Someone else's opinion with expertise in the relevant subject, requested by the court:
 

Quote

 

"An amicus curiae (literally, "friend of the court"; plural, amici curiae) is someone who is not a party to a case who assists a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. The decision on whether to consider an amicus brief lies within the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin.

In the United States, amicus curiae typically refers to what in other jurisdiction is known as an intervenor: a person or organization who requests to provide legal submissions so as to offer a relevant alternative or additional perspective regarding the matters in dispute. In other jurisdictions, such as Canada, an amicus curiae is a lawyer who is asked by the court to provide legal submissions regarding issues that would otherwise not be aired properly, often because one or both of the parties is not represented by counsel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

 

In other words, stop yakking and start reading. 

[SUZNV + 1,197]

3 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

Someone else's opinion with expertise in the relevant subject, requested by the court:
 

In other words, stop yakking and start reading. 

There are other opinion with expertise in the subject saying Flynn was innocent as well, for example his new  lawyer. What is your point?

Edited June 24, 2020 by SUZNV

[BradleyPNW + 282]

1 minute ago, SUZNV said:

There are other opinion with expertise in the subject saying Flynn was innocent as well, for example his new  lawyer. What is your point?

👉 Point:  "someone who is not a party to a case"  👈
 

[SUZNV + 1,197]

17 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

👉 Point:  "someone who is not a party to a case"  👈
 

Or some experts mainstream chose to broadcast? We have them all the time for the last 4 years. Should mainstream vote for you as well because you depend on their experts more than your logic or knowledge?

In this matter, who ever say something is a political ally to a party to a case, even "friend of the court" did not change the fact of "innocent until proven guilty". Is your expert a politician or appointed by an politician?

Edited June 24, 2020 by SUZNV

[SUZNV + 1,197]

23 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

👉 Point:  "someone who is not a party to a case"  👈
 

Wednesday's court order was direct, ordering "that Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part; the District Court is directed to grant the government’s ... motion to dismiss; and the District Court’s order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date."

Is this counted? Or "friend of the court" is more important.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

33 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

👉 Point:  "someone who is not a party to a case"  👈
 

Case closed....next antifa failure....https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/24/dc-circuit-orders-flynn-judge-to-dismiss-charges-337751

Tik Tok TIk Tok....the hour is coming.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open

[BradleyPNW + 282]

46 minutes ago, SUZNV said:

Wednesday's court order was direct, ordering "that Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part; the District Court is directed to grant the government’s ... motion to dismiss; and the District Court’s order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date."

Is this counted? Or "friend of the court" is more important.

Yes, it counts. It might even be the final say in the matter. But what issue did they decide? That, in principle, the DOJ should be allowed to drop a case. Not exactly the exoneration you've been arguing for, is it. 

 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

59 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Case closed....next antifa failure....https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/24/dc-circuit-orders-flynn-judge-to-dismiss-charges-337751

Tik Tok TIk Tok....the hour is coming.

TikTok kids and K-pop stans made Donald look like this.