China's Blueprint For Global Power

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

47 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Err... ok?   Do you want a medal?

Not even here and getting abuse. Zzz

abuse?

[Guest]

yeah not you, just read odd bit offline

some people here are truly pathetic mate

bored 

[Marcin + 519]

I actually believe that Trump deserve credit for changing the narrative around China. And I think history will record that as a really big Trump win. However, whilst I think Trump deserves credit for opening the worlds eyes I remain sceptical what actual results Trumps policies will achieve. 

I personally  believe that if Trump really wanted to create results he would have united the world against China based on a semi green / enviromental platform... That would have created results and he would have gotten most of the world onboard .

 

I quoted these to 2 replies by @Rasmus Jorgensenas I agree with over 90% of these statements, and this is what I would say is balanced view.

I would be honest, I joined this forum 2 months ago to talk about: mainly US-China-EU relations, but also US-China-Russia relations, and various aspects of China-US hegemony rivalry.

My major concern was the polarized difference I noticed between 2 groups:  1 group (per my perception&knowledge, balanced views): the opinions of American: strategic analysts, scholars, diplomats, economists writing books about China, former US politicians - generally people that independently can talk what they researched and think about the subject and 2 group (views polarized, biased against China per my knowledge): The prevailing opinions I found in a lot of US media, like: Bloomberg, Reuters, the Economist. So only Americans in both groups, but having different perceptions.

To be honest media in group 2 have reasonably good coverage of many economic topics, I did not understand why their coverage of China was so different from group 1.

After 2 months at this forum my interests have evolved a little bit. I got fascinated how many people here belong to group 2. At first I have not believed, thought that many are just trolling me out of boredom. Later I got a thought: maybe they just have no knowledge about the subject, China is like talking football, everybody knows something and is eager to share own view. But these persons had an excellent knowledge about many subjects, I enjoyed many of their comments, their insight.

I changed a little bit the way I was commenting at oilprice.

I was not only commenting but also showing my mind processes: quoting a lot of numbers, metrics that help me analyze this or that Chinese related subject (toolset that serves me well at my job for 2 decades). At this moment it became really scary: people write that the numbers are manufactured, that they are wrong and were jumping quickly at ad hominem,  that I am anti-American, anti-Trump, love Communist China and Xi Jinping, I am stupid etc.

At this point I am most interested in 1 topic (really): The perceived cognitive bias of US citizens against Chinese related issues and what are the sources of these bias.

 

 

 

[Marcin + 519]

I hope I have not offended anybody by my previous post, truly remarkable people here at oilprice, I enjoy reading about a lot of topics here.

I have theory about sources of this perceived cognitive bias: (I observe this phenomenon but maybe it is my own pro-China or Anti-American bias that drives this issue. Personally I do not see the sources of such bias as I was always beneficiary of all things American-related and have no touch with anything Chinese)

a) United States had no real peer for over 100 years. Since about 1870 US was the largest single economy, larger than British Isles, since about 1910 US economy was larger than all British Empire. China is the first real contender for hegemony since 1918. Totally new situation: society needs time to accomodate.

b) Philosophy of American exceptionalism that teaches Americans that they are the best (it is important that understood as: Not good but better than all others).

c) Rise of China was very quick. China became visible under US political radar as a rival only in about 2000-2001 in 2000 presidential campaign and early Bush Jr administration. So in only 20 years sth impossible became real. Not enough time  for society to adapt.

d) United States has its own political, economic, socio-economic problems.

Compound d) with b) and c) and you have recipe for a lot of cognitive bias.

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Marcin
spelling

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Despite being labelled a "Trump hater" I actually believe that Trump deserve credit for changing the narrative around China. And I think history will record that as a really big Trump win. However, whilst I think Trump deserves credit for opening the worlds eyes I remain sceptical what actual results Trumps policies will achieve. 

I personally  believe that if Trump really wanted to create results he would have united the world against China based on a semi green / enviromental platform... That would have created results and he would have gotten most of the world onboard.... 

@DayTrader - this is whats called a balanced view. 

The green movement will never unite against a ‘developing’ China. Take a look at the Chinese exemptions written into the Paris Agreement.

@Rasmus Jorgensen - that is what is called reality.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

@Rasmus Jorgensen - that is what is called reality.

Yup, you nailed it.

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The green movement will never unite against a ‘developing’ China. Take a look at the Chinese exemptions written into the Paris Agreement.

To begin, China is ahead of its Paris Agreement commitments and, unlike the USA who has chosen to walk away, will be seen as in international leader in fighting climate change thereby making the notion of "uniting against" it somewhat contradictory. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

To begin, China is ahead of its Paris Agreement commitments and, unlike the USA who has chosen to walk away, will be seen as in international leader in fighting climate change thereby making the notion of "uniting against" it somewhat contradictory. 

Yeah, take a look at WHEN China has to conform to the Paris Agreement. Whey are they on a separate timeline? 

[remake it + 288]

6 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Err... ok?   Do you want a medal?

 

One must be rewarded with a medal?

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

 @Rasmus Jorgensen- that is what is called reality.

 

[remake it + 288]

12 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Yeah, take a look at WHEN China has to conform to the Paris Agreement. Whey are they on a separate timeline? 

Although China is advancing rapidly it has not yet matured as an economy and with around 500 million people surviving on $5.50 per day or less China needs to maintain a growing/expanding economy which also requires a massive annual increases in energy - not all of it able to be met by renewables - but they see this phase as turning around by 2030.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, remake it said:

Although China is advancing rapidly it has not yet matured as an economy and with around 500 million people surviving on $5.50 per day or less China needs to maintain a growing/expanding economy which also requires a massive annual increases in energy - not all of it able to be met by renewables - but they see this phase as turning around by 2030.

Good lord you’re stupid!

[remake it + 288]

50 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Good lord you’re stupid!

Another example of how you debate - well done!

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The green movement will never unite against a ‘developing’ China. Take a look at the Chinese exemptions written into the Paris Agreement.

I said semi green / enviromental platform. I was talking about people such as myself that are eco pragmatists and sligtly worried about the world we are leaving for our kids; without necessarily being a militant climate crusader or vegan. There are many like me in Europe. 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Another example of how you debate - well done!

But, as you may have noticed, I am not alone in this sentiment....well done!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 hours ago, remake it said:

Although China is advancing rapidly it has not yet matured as an economy and with around 500 million people surviving on $5.50 per day or less China needs to maintain a growing/expanding economy which also requires a massive annual increases in energy - not all of it able to be met by renewables - but they see this phase as turning around by 2030.

While every other developed country must do it ‘now’.

The Chinese can orbit the moon, desire a space station, field a huge military....yet 500 million Chinese exist on $5.50 a day or less. Perhaps their priorities are misplaced.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

11 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

The real question for Americans (and Europeans) to ponder is:  how would it have all turned out if Hillary were in there running the show?  And unfortunately, the answer to that is: quite badly

I can follow and somewhat respect the argument that Trump is the lesser evil. 

It is my (maybe vain) hope that Trump and his like-minded will actually in-advertently do a lot of good by for-example forcing EU to become a real Union. Yeah, we have differences. But as a Dane I have more in common with Germans and Italians than I do with Chinese and Russians. Takin the training wheels away is about time in my opinion. 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

22 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I said semi green / enviromental platform. I was talking about people such as myself that are eco pragmatists and sligtly worried about the world we are leaving for our kids; without necessarily being a militant climate crusader or vegan. There are many like me in Europe. 

The thing is, there does not seem to be a semi green/environmental platform, it is either all or nothing, you either agree fully with the climate hysteria or you are a ‘denier’. The issue is so polarized that there is no middle ground.

You bring a very applicable term to the table, ‘eco pragmatist’. I think any rational adult would desire clean air and water, would agree that such things as single use plastics need to be avoided, that the islands of garbage in the ocean need addressed, etc... But they also understand that money doesn’t grow on trees and that taxing people to death is not the answer. I think picking the ‘low hanging’ environmental issues, where the technology is readily available, should be addressed NOW, then move on to the bigger, more contentious issues later.

Just my opinion...

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The thing is, there does not seem to be a semi green/environmental platform, it is either all or nothing, you either agree fully with the climate hysteria or you are a ‘denier’. The issue is so polarized that there is no middle ground.

That's sort of my point - if someone would use that middleground as a platform that someone could be hugely succesfull. 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

9 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

That's sort of my point - if someone would use that middleground as a platform that someone could be hugely succesfull. 

 

Nation's Gen Xers Announce Plan To Just Sit Back And Enjoy Watching Boomers, Millennials Tear Each Other To Shreds

U.S.—The nation's population of Gen Xers announced Thursday they would be continuing their policy of just sitting back and enjoying watching boomers and millennials blame each other for everything.

"We're just gonna slowly back away and stay out of the crossfire," said Mike Ganders, 49. "The boomers are blaming the millennials for everything, the millennials pin all their problems on the boomers---and frankly, I'm OK with this arrangement."

Boomers often accuse millennials of ruining the nation by being lazy, not buying houses, and eating avocado toast. Millennials, in turn, point out that boomers put the nation on a trajectory of growing debt and borrowing from future generations to fund their own lifestyles and also still haven't figured out how to use Facebook. In the meantime, savvy members of Generation X suddenly realized that they were completely off the hook for their own faults, and so decided to simply watch from a safe distance as the generations that bookend them blast each other constantly.

"We kinda have it made," Ganders added. "We get all the benefits of the boomers' unsustainable social programs and get to be a little bit lazy like the millennials, and yet they skip right over us and blame the other guy."   ...

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

16 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

That's sort of my point - if someone would use that middleground as a platform that someone could be hugely succesfull. 

 

As there is no middle ground at the moment, he/she may just end up slitting their political throat.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The issue is so polarized that there is no middle ground.

Douglas, as I have stated before here, that is because the "ecos" have been looking for "The Bogeyman," that mythical creature that is out there, hiding everywhere, including behind the drapes in your bedroom, heady to pounce on you and destroy you.  The Bogeyman is a peculiar human imagination component, and you see that in every society.  In the Medieval Period in Europe, the Bogeyman was, respectively as to yourself, either a Catholic or a Protestant - and always a Jew.  Today in US political circles, the Bogeyman is a Muslim, anyone who has another language as native tongue, except, according to Trump, if you are Norwegian. If your combat is with the Bogeyman, then you cannot ever prevail, you have to be on eternal alert, eternal vigilance, and building incessant, never-ending walls. It also means you keep Guantanamo Bay Prison open forever, because here are always more Bogeymen out there, to go capture. 

The reality is that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million, roughly at the concentration of argon. So, rationally, the hysteria is just beyond belief.  Nonetheless, in the effort to fight The Bogeyman, national governments will commit and spend trillions to fight "The Bogeyman."  It is a stupendous nonsense, but "It is what it Is."  To that extent, is is a blown-up version of the Dutch Tulip Bubble of a few hundred years ago. 

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I think picking the ‘low hanging’ environmental issues, where the technology is readily available, should be addressed NOW,

I will again state that the "low hanging fruit" is out there are easy enough to pick off. In lots of ways the Western religious thought gets in the way. For example, on of the West's biggies is the religious idea that "life begins at conception."  This is an idea pressed by certain churches and church groups and has become deeply ingrained, to the extent that, for example, the US does not support population control methods in poor countries by teaching the use of, and supplying vast quantities of, condoms. Yet when you look at those countries with dense populations you realize tht that reproduction rate is folly.  Is India better off with a population reduction of 75%?  Of course it is.   The idea that India could or should have a population of a billion is just insane. Yet there you are.  Can the Indians be convinced to switch to sexual limitation?  Of course not; the idea is absurd.  So then the logical input is to place some barrier in there to avoid continuing pregnancies.  Can the West do that, on the cheap, thus dramatically lowering population pressures?  Of course it can.  Setting up manufacturing plants to crank out condoms is a trivial exercise, and plenty cheap enough.  So, you can start on the world's problems by sheathing the Indians. 

Sound racist to you?  What about the "white people"?  Well, guess what, the white people are already well on the path to population implosion, the reproduction or fecundity rates well below replacement levels.  For example, in Germany and Italy you can anticipate a 2/3 reduction in white people over the next three generations.  That is stupendous.  Will it wreck the quality of life for the remainder?  Of course not.  Technology today (and cheap energy) makes up for the loss of output from the missing billions.  And the response from the politicians, particularly the unmarried and un-reproduced Angela Merkel?  Why, open up the floodgates to that mass of millions of migrants, which will alter the Western society irrevocably and push fecundity rates back up over 2.1, for at least another three or four generations.  Smart policy?  Well, not exactly. 

Now when you get into "plastics" I remind the readership that the technology already exists to convert plastics materials into gasoline, on the cheap.  It requires some capital, but the capital barrier is basically not there, assuming societies want to do that.  The worst offenders in choking the lands and oceans with plastic waste are out there in the Far East, their rivers just unbelievably choked with the garbage.  Can those societies tackle that head-on, using American technology?  Of course they can.  But they choose not to. Can the West force the issue?  But of course; that solution boils down to the concept of "expulsion;" hey, you want to trade with the Americans, you want to have US military protection, then you will, no buts about it, proceed post-haste to clone the US conversion technology, pay the inventors their royalties, and get with the program.  No more dumped waste.  You are not ready to do that?  OK, so now you are a "pariah," and you are cut off.  As far as the West is concerned, you no longer exist.  Go wallow in your filth, we don't have anything to do with you. 

And watch just how fast that tune changes.  I predict the Philippines will be the first to change, very fast. 

Americans especially have the clout to do what it takes to sort out the planet, and can do it on the cheap.  Trump has the right idea, even though he is illiterate as to physics and chemistry.  He instinctively recognizes that the eco crazies are harping on CO2 because that Bogeyman will always be under the bed, lurking, and you can never contend with it.  CO2 is everywhere, a dispersed trace gas, so how do you "combat CO2"?  And the answer is both, you cannot, and need not.  A trace gas is not going to hurt you, not a concentrations of parts per million.  

What will hurt you, and again is cheap enough to go fix, is desertification.  That is a huge threat, and yes, societies can reverse desertification, right now the Chinese are hard at work on it with the Gobi and are achieving interesting successes.  The key is water, of course, but building say a diversion channel for some of the water of the Congo River is not that hard, the West again has lots of expertise in building channels, even entire rivers.  It is cheap enough and restoring the savannah is the best possible investment in the planet out there.  Will the Paris Accord guys ever do that?  Of course not.  They are too busy looking for The Bogeyman.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

15 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Now when you get into "plastics" I remind the readership that the technology already exists to convert plastics materials into gasoline, on the cheap.  It requires some capital, but the capital barrier is basically not there, assuming societies want to do that.  The worst offenders in choking the lands and oceans with plastic waste are out there in the Far East, their rivers just unbelievably choked with the garbage.  Can those societies tackle that head-on, using American technology?  Of course they can.  But they choose not to. Can the West force the issue?  But of course; that solution boils down to the concept of "expulsion;" hey, you want to trade with the Americans, you want to have US military protection, then you will, no buts about it, proceed post-haste to clone the US conversion technology, pay the inventors their royalties, and get with the program.  No more dumped waste.  You are not ready to do that?  OK, so now you are a "pariah," and you are cut off.  As far as the West is concerned, you no longer exist.  Go wallow in your filth, we don't have anything to do with you. 

And watch just how fast that tune changes.  I predict the Philippines will be the first to change, very fast. 

^Bingo. 

Any American leader that did this would have the Europeans following. My hope is that EU in my lifetime grows the balls to take on this type of leadership. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

17 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

What will hurt you, and again is cheap enough to go fix, is desertification.  That is a huge threat, and yes, societies can reverse desertification, right now the Chinese are hard at work on it with the Gobi and are achieving interesting successes.  The key is water, of course, but building say a diversion channel for some of the water of the Congo River is not that hard, the West again has lots of expertise in building channels, even entire rivers.  It is cheap enough and restoring the savannah is the best possible investment in the planet out there.  Will the Paris Accord guys ever do that?  Of course not.  They are too busy looking for The Bogeyman.

So the Paris accord is wrong. When someone proposes the above solution to be rolled out I am willing to be that there will be real support. Trump would be the darling of Europe if he proposed this and Europe I think would happily shoulder a lot of the financing. Just think - all those people put to work. They wouldn't have to migrate towards Europe. 

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

21 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

And the response from the politicians, particularly the unmarried and un-reproduced Angela Merkel?  Why, open up the floodgates to that mass of millions of migrants, which will alter the Western society irrevocably and push fecundity rates back up over 2.1, for at least another three or four generations.  Smart policy?  Well, not exactly. 

I really think that genuine compassion for suffering people was part of it too. 

[Rob Plant + 2,608]

2 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

^Bingo. 

Any American leader that did this would have the Europeans following. My hope is that EU in my lifetime grows the balls to take on this type of leadership. 

Never going to happen!

Too many politicians in the EU. You need clarity of leadership for this to happen, a la Trump!