I find it curious that the little pinks keep boasting about China being better than western nations because it is a meritocracy rather than a democracy. Yet they cannot comment on the fact that the CCP is internally democratic, nor explain how to derive merit from the CCP starving 50 million Chinese people to death by trying to feed them.


freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2022 at 8:17am:

athos wrote on Dec 2nd, 2022 at 11:01am: Chinese leadership must go through a rigorous selection process based on strict meritocracy. Isn't the CCP internally democratic? How much merit do you think there is in starving 50 million of your own citizens to death by trying to feed them?

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2022 at 1:33pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 3rd, 2022 at 1:24pm: er..that happened 70 years ago Who told you that? Your CCP propaganda pamphlet? thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 3rd, 2022 at 1:24pm: CCP understanding of macroeconomics  has progressed since then Are you suggesting that starving 50 million people to death by trying to feed them was meritworthy in 1960?

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 9:49am:

I find it curious that the little pinks keep boasting about China being better than western nations because it is a meritocracy rather than a democracy.

But of course, it's not a meritocracy, at least not in terms of talent or earned ability. Any Chinese person will tell you that the custom of guanxi in Chinese society elevates those who have it above those who don't.

In China under the CCP, guanxi translates into how much influence you have with CCP officials. There are administrative seniors in China who can barely read and write but are liked and trusted by CCP leaders in the region.

Jack Ma calling that out is one reason he's hiding out in Japan, sans his billions, of course.

Also, how much merit do the little pinks see in the CCP denying that covid even existed for the first few months, thus helping it spread throughout China and the rest of the world far more rapidly than if the CCP had any honesty or credibility? And killing millions more people than would have died if the CCP had any honesty or credibility? Then doing a complete backflip, and literally locking the door after the horse has bolted, now trying to defeat the virus with harsh and crippling lockdowns while the rest of the world is putting it all behind them?

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 10:07am:

Also, how much merit do the little pinks see in the CCP denying that covid even existed for the first few months, thus helping it spread throughout China and the rest of the world far more rapidly than if the CCP had any honesty or credibility? And killing millions more people than would have died if the CCP had any honesty or credibility? Then doing a complete backflip, and literally locking the door after the horse has bolted, now trying to defeat the virus with harsh and crippling lockdowns while the rest of the world is putting it all behind them?

The result of an unaccountable and corrupt political system.

They seem to see the Chinese people as lab rats to do economic experiments on, then act all surprised when the results turn out to be the same as everywhere else in the world.

I think I have figured it out. It is nothing to do with the CCP's actions or achievements. It is all about saying you have the correct goals:


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 11^th, 2022 at 10:32am:

freediver wrote on Dec 11th, 2022 at 8:28am: Quote: Governance to promote collective well-being, as opposed to governance to promote individual "freedom" Governments of free countries cannot starve 50 million of their citizens to death by trying to feed them equally. Yet governance to promote collective well-being can, apparently. Past failures are no evidence of future successes (to reverse the investment mantra...) So..achieving collective well-being remains the finest of motivations.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 12^th, 2022 at 11:18am:

China's consensus meritocracy  of course has the advantage

How is China a "consensus meritocracy"?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 7^th, 2024 at 11:17am:

freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2024 at 9:29pm: 50 million people starving to death is merely an "administrative error," Correct

Why did it take 50 million deaths for CCP to realise it had made an "administrative error"?

freediver wrote on Dec 13^th, 2022 at 11:40am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 12th, 2022 at 11:18am: China's consensus meritocracy  of course has the advantage  How is China a "consensus meritocracy"?

'Elections' at the local political level  are by a show of hands  (consensus among party members) , same as with the selection of candidates for political parties in Oz.

Hopefully the most capable candidates are selected in either case.  After that, at the national level the most capable (hopefully) can inplement the Party's policies -  again hopefully the best policies to achieve sustainable common prosperity' as opposed entrenched poverty among soaring inequality in the blind leading the blind democracies. 

The jury is still out on which system is the best; but it would be paranoia gone mad to try to destroy China just because you don't like its system. 

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2024 at 11:36am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 11:17am: freediver wrote on Jun 6th, 2024 at 9:29pm: 50 million people starving to death is merely an "administrative error," Correct Why did it take 50 million deaths for CCP to realise it had made an "administrative error"?

Because a pragmatic revolutionary party trying to lift a billion people out of absolute povety had no guide book.

Turns out that pragmatism worked after some mistakes: compare the other comparable economy in the world, India, which went down the democratic election route after independence.

Growth in the two economies (with similar GDPs in 1980)  diverged markedly after the Deng reforms in China, so much so we can say democracy failed in India, with the latest election proving people are weary of governments who don't achieve economic progress for all. 

Quote:

Because a pragmatic revolutionary party trying to lift a billion people out of absolute povety had no guide book.

If they did have a guide book, would it say something like don't wait until you have starved 50 million people to death before realising you made an "administrative error"?

Why do you think they didn't admit their mistake after the first million people starved to death?


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 7^th, 2024 at 1:03pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2022 at 11:40am: thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 12th, 2022 at 11:18am: China's consensus meritocracy  of course has the advantage  How is China a "consensus meritocracy"? 'Elections' at the local political level  are by a show of hands  (consensus among party members) , same as with the selection of candidates for political parties in Oz. Hopefully the most capable candidates are selected in either case.  After that, at the national level the most capable (hopefully) can inplement the Party's policies -  again hopefully the best policies to achieve sustainable common prosperity' as opposed entrenched poverty among soaring inequality in the blind leading the blind democracies.  The jury is still out on which system is the best; but it would be paranoia gone mad to try to destroy China just because you don't like its system.

The CCP rewarded Mao for starving 50 million people to death. Does that mean they see his actions as meritorious?

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2024 at 1:46pm:

If they did have a guide book,.....

They didn't, so your following is mere hypothetical conjecture, but let's have a look.....we can always benefit from  exploring your delusional "freedom values" brain (ie freedom for individuals, regardless of egregious outcomes for the collective).   

Note: naturally you are blindly obsessed with a past 'socialist' policy which failed to deliver for the collective,  and use it to avoid examination  of present  freemarket failure, eg the current cost of living crisis resulting in homelessness, and food and energy insecurity for poor people. 


Quote:

would it say something like don't wait until you have starved 50 million people to death before realising you made an "administrative error"?

No it wouldn't, government is complex and  the situation was complex; information from far flung areas in a vast country was sketchy:

(google)

"(Famine) caused by a combination of radical agricultural policies, social pressure, economic mismanagement, and natural disasters such as droughts and floods in farming regions."


Quote:

Why do you think they didn't admit their mistake after the first million people starved to death?

For the same reasons noted above, ie,  government is complex eg it took years for the Morrison govt. to understand its Robodebt policies were killing people.

The jury is still out on which system (one party consensus meritocracy,  or adversarial  two party system)  is the best; but it would be paranoia gone mad to try to destroy China just because you don't like its system. 


Quote:

The CCP rewarded Mao for starving 50 million people to death. Does that mean they see his actions as meritorious?

No it didn't:

(google)

The policies of Mao Zedong were criticized. The failure of the Great Leap Forward as well as the famine forced Mao Zedong to withdraw from active decision-making within the CCP and the central government, and turn various future responsibilities over to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 12:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 1:46pm: [quote]The CCP rewarded Mao for starving 50 million people to death. Does that mean they see his actions as meritorious? No it didn't: (google) The policies of Mao Zedong were criticized. The failure of the Great Leap Forward as well as the famine forced Mao Zedong to withdraw from active decision-making within the CCP and the central government, and turn various future responsibilities over to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.

Whose picture is on that wall in central Peking, bozo?

https://compote.slate.com/images/d055da7f-455d-4fbe-bc20-c38dc5684c58.jpg

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 12:25pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 1:46pm: If they did have a guide book,..... They didn't, so your following is mere hypothetical conjecture, but let's have a look.....we can always benefit from  exploring your delusional "freedom values" brain (ie freedom for individuals, regardless of egregious outcomes for the collective).    Note: naturally you are blindly obsessed with a past 'socialist' policy which failed to deliver for the collective,  and use it to avoid examination  of present  freemarket failure, eg the current cost of living crisis resulting in homelessness, and food and energy insecurity for poor people.  Quote: would it say something like don't wait until you have starved 50 million people to death before realising you made an "administrative error"? No it wouldn't, government is complex and  the situation was complex; information from far flung areas in a vast country was sketchy: (google) "(Famine) caused by a combination of radical agricultural policies, social pressure, economic mismanagement, and natural disasters such as droughts and floods in farming regions." [quote]Why do you think they didn't admit their mistake after the first million people starved to death?

For the same reasons noted above, ie,  government is complex eg it took years for the Morrison govt. to understand its Robodebt policies were killing people.

The jury is still out on which system (one party consensus meritocracy,  or adversarial  two party system)  is the best; but it would be paranoia gone mad to try to destroy China just because you don't like its system. 


Quote:

The CCP rewarded Mao for starving 50 million people to death. Does that mean they see his actions as meritorious?

No it didn't:

(google)

The policies of Mao Zedong were criticized. The failure of the Great Leap Forward as well as the famine forced Mao Zedong to withdraw from active decision-making within the CCP and the central government, and turn various future responsibilities over to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.

[/quote]

They allowed Mao to withdraw for a while. It was his decision. That is hardly punishment. They then allowed Mao to return to the leadership role and start yet another round of killings. They even threw him a grand funeral when he died at the grand old age of 83. He was still in office on the day he died. Allowing a mass murdering to run your country and go on killing is not punishment.

And you claim not to defend the CCP killing nearly 100 million people. You just tell little lies to make it seem like they did something about it.

How can you call China a meritocracy with a straight face when it's leader was so incompetent that it took 50 million people starving to death before realising something was up? And then rewarded the man responsible with rule for life?

Frank wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 12:31pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 12:25pm: freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 1:46pm: [quote]The CCP rewarded Mao for starving 50 million people to death. Does that mean they see his actions as meritorious? No it didn't: (google) The policies of Mao Zedong were criticized. The failure of the Great Leap Forward as well as the famine forced Mao Zedong to withdraw from active decision-making within the CCP and the central government, and turn various future responsibilities over to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. Whose picture is on that wall in central Peking, bozo? https://compote.slate.com/images/d055da7f-455d-4fbe-bc20-c38dc5684c58.jpg

Mao:

"Writing in 1939, Mao Zedong stated that the Movement had shown that the bourgeois revolution against imperialism and China had developed to a new stage, but that the proletariat would lead the revolution's completion.[9]

Iow, Mao is to the Chinese people and government what Marx is to communism - its revered founder.

....despite his mistakes, and consequent displacement by other leaders.


(Good try though...)

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 12:41pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 12:31pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 12:25pm: freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 1:46pm: [quote]The CCP rewarded Mao for starving 50 million people to death. Does that mean they see his actions as meritorious? No it didn't: (google) The policies of Mao Zedong were criticized. The failure of the Great Leap Forward as well as the famine forced Mao Zedong to withdraw from active decision-making within the CCP and the central government, and turn various future responsibilities over to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. Whose picture is on that wall in central Peking, bozo? https://compote.slate.com/images/d055da7f-455d-4fbe-bc20-c38dc5684c58.jpg Mao: "Writing in 1939, Mao Zedong stated that the Movement had shown that the bourgeois revolution against imperialism and China had developed to a new stage, but that the proletariat would lead the revolution's completion.[9] Iow, Mao is to the Chinese people and government what Marx is to communism - its revered founder. ....despite his mistakes, and consequent displacement by other leaders. (Good try though...)

So rewarded then, with hero worship.

Despite being responsible for 50 million deaths.

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 12:36pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 12:25pm: freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 1:46pm: If they did have a guide book,..... They didn't, so your following is mere hypothetical conjecture, but let's have a look.....we can always benefit from  exploring your delusional "freedom values" brain (ie freedom for individuals, regardless of egregious outcomes for the collective).    Note: naturally you are blindly obsessed with a past 'socialist' policy which failed to deliver for the collective,  and use it to avoid examination  of present  freemarket failure, eg the current cost of living crisis resulting in homelessness, and food and energy insecurity for poor people.  Quote: would it say something like don't wait until you have starved 50 million people to death before realising you made an "administrative error"? No it wouldn't, government is complex and  the situation was complex; information from far flung areas in a vast country was sketchy: (google) "(Famine) caused by a combination of radical agricultural policies, social pressure, economic mismanagement, and natural disasters such as droughts and floods in farming regions." [quote]Why do you think they didn't admit their mistake after the first million people starved to death? For the same reasons noted above, ie,  government is complex eg it took years for the Morrison govt. to understand its Robodebt policies were killing people. The jury is still out on which system (one party consensus meritocracy,  or adversarial  two party system)  is the best; but it would be paranoia gone mad to try to destroy China just because you don't like its system.  [quote]The CCP rewarded Mao for starving 50 million people to death. Does that mean they see his actions as meritorious?

No it didn't:

(google)

The policies of Mao Zedong were criticized. The failure of the Great Leap Forward as well as the famine forced Mao Zedong to withdraw from active decision-making within the CCP and the central government, and turn various future responsibilities over to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.

[/quote]

They allowed Mao to withdraw for a while. It was his decision. That is hardly punishment. [/quote]

Why did Mao "withdraw" -   was it voluntary?


Quote:

They then allowed Mao to return to the leadership role and start yet another round of killings. They even threw him a grand funeral when he died at the grand old age of 83. He was still in office on the day he died. Allowing a mass murdering to run your country and go on killing is not punishment.

Well , India proves democracy doesn't improve living standards fast enough,  in a mass subsistence poverty nation.

Mao is considered one of the most influential figures of the 20th century. Mao's policies were responsible for a vast number of deaths, with estimates ranging from 40 to 80 million victims due to starvation, persecution, prison labour, and mass executions, and his government has been described as totalitarian. He has been also credited with transforming China from a semi-colony to a leading world power by advancing literacy, women's rights, basic healthcare, primary education, and improving life expectancy. Mao is revered as a national hero who liberated the country from foreign occupation and exploitation in China. He became an ideological figurehead and a prominent influence over the international communist movement, being endowed with remembrance, admiration and a cult of personality both during and after his life.

See....government is complex....

And now China is proving a one-party meritocracy can improve living standards for all, perhaps even more effectively than first world democracies. 


Quote:

And you claim not to defend the CCP killing nearly 100 million people. You just tell little lies to make it seem like they did something about it.

Wrong on both counts, I admit Mao's past mistakes,  and urge the CCP to advance common prosperity asap, while the West is creating sickening inequality; and as for lies, your wholly self-interested "individual freedom" ideology is the ultimate lie responsible for the endless wars and entrenched poverty in our world. 


Quote:

How can you call China a meritocracy with a straight face when it's leader was so incompetent that it took 50 million people starving to death before realising something was up? And then rewarded the man responsible with rule for life?

I'm calling it a meritocracy NOW (with Xi as the figurehead).....do try to keep up.

Frank wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 12:46pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 12:41pm: Frank wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 12:31pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 8th, 2024 at 12:25pm: freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2024 at 1:46pm: [quote]The CCP rewarded Mao for starving 50 million people to death. Does that mean they see his actions as meritorious? No it didn't: (google) The policies of Mao Zedong were criticized. The failure of the Great Leap Forward as well as the famine forced Mao Zedong to withdraw from active decision-making within the CCP and the central government, and turn various future responsibilities over to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. Whose picture is on that wall in central Peking, bozo? https://compote.slate.com/images/d055da7f-455d-4fbe-bc20-c38dc5684c58.jpg Mao: "Writing in 1939, Mao Zedong stated that the Movement had shown that the bourgeois revolution against imperialism and China had developed to a new stage, but that the proletariat would lead the revolution's completion.[9] Iow, Mao is to the Chinese people and government what Marx is to communism - its revered founder. ....despite his mistakes, and consequent displacement by other leaders. (Good try though...) So rewarded then, with hero worship. Despite being responsible for 50 million deaths.

No, remembered as the founder of Chinese communism, which has lifted more people out of poverty at a faster rate  than any nation in history. 

Quote:

Why did Mao "withdraw" -   was it voluntary?

He probably lost a little face over the 50 million people he starved to death by trying to feed them all equally. Obviously it was voluntary, or they would not have let him take the reiogns again and start another round of killings.


Quote:

And now China is proving a one-party meritocracy can improve living standards for all

They can also kill nearly 100 million of their own citizens and reward the leader responsible. I still don't get why you call that a meritocracy. They didn't need to do that in order to improve living standards for all, as every other country on earth proves. All a government has to do is stand back and let the people do it themselves. Western companies will pour billions into any poverty stricken nation to take advantage of cheap labour. This can and does lift starving people out of poverty overnight - as soon as the government allows it to happen.


Quote:

I admit Mao's past mistakes

But you still call it a meritocracy. Was there any merit in Mao killing 100 million Chinese people? You seem to think there was merit in killing the first 20 million prior to the CCP overthrowing the Chinese government, as well as the CCP standing back and letting the Japanese army rape and pillage their way across China.

How is this any different from a Nazi calling the holocaust an "administrative error," like it only happened because Hitler ticked the wrong box on the genocide form.


Quote:

I'm calling it a meritocracy NOW (with Xi as the figurehead).....do try to keep up.

When did the CCP suddenly become a meritocracy?

Do you see merit in the CCP's handling of covid?

If Mao was never punished, what makes you think the culture within the CCP has changed? The current leaders grew up learning from Mao's example and seeing him rewarded for being the biggest killer in human history.

Do you think it is reasonable for a government to need to kill nearly 100 million of their own people over about a century in order to "learn" how to run the country? When they are surrounded by other countries showing them how to do it the easy way?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2024 at 9:27am:

He probably lost a little face over the 50 million people he starved to death by trying to feed them all equally. Obviously it was voluntary, or they would not have let him take the reiogns again and start another round of killings.

Regardless of whether he "probably" lost a little face, he wasn't trying to "feed everyone equally",  he was trying to ensure food security for all, in a nation with 90%  absolute poverty - something you have diffliculty understanding......see the huge demands on food chairities in 'wealthy' Oz today despite the excess of food supplies.


Quote:

TGD And now China is proving a one-party meritocracy can improve living standards for all They can also kill nearly 100 million of their own citizens and reward the leader responsible.

Your error in logic: they DID kill nearly 100 million... while trying to lift a billion people out of abolute poverty -

And a generation later the results are in, after thechange in course:  Chinese life expectency is now higher than the US,  never been achieved  in a mere generation, in history.

That's the advantage of a oneparty meritocracy over fraudulent adversarial two party democracy. 


Quote:

I still don't get why you call that a meritocracy.

The most able, chosen by consensus at the local level, move up through the ranks to the national level, all with the common goal of progress guided by  'common prosperity'.   

Compared with the most ideological who are selected for adversarial parties...by definition, their brains are already crippled by "freedom values" ideology, like you, rather than common prosperity (not the same as 'equality of outcome', the RW lie).   


Quote:

They didn't need to do that in order to improve living standards for all, as every other country on earth proves. All a government has to do is stand back and let the people do it themselves.

Your error: people don't like suffering cost of living and  and homelessness crises, which is why the democracies are imploding as hyperpartisanship and voter despair result in changing governments to no avail.  The leaders are hopeless  (if not fraudulent); like Modi and Macron, they think they can earn more support at the next election, but they always lose support - because the 2 party system is a fraud.  


Quote:

Western companies will pour billions into any poverty stricken nation to take advantage of cheap labour. This can and does lift starving people out of poverty overnight - as soon as the government allows it to happen.

Your error: the sick IMF-led system (a US stooge) allows profit seeking companies to profit from slave labour - until China was about to overtake the US.....


Quote:

But you still call it a meritocracy. Was there any merit in Mao killing 100 million Chinese people? You seem to think there was merit in killing the first 20 million prior to the CCP overthrowing the Chinese government, as well as the CCP standing back and letting the Japanese army rape and pillage their way across China.

There is merit in creating common prosperity, something even the US - "the beacon on the hill" can't do.


Quote:

How is this any different from a Nazi calling the holocaust an "administrative error," like it only happened because Hitler ticked the wrong box on the genocide form.

The holocaust was a policy designed to 'rid' (in Nazi eyes)  Europe of Jews, Marxism is a philosophy of well-being for all. 


Quote:

When did the CCP suddenly become a meritocracy?

From the start of the Marxist revolution, but Marxist  theories weren't able to  guide actual policies required to lift a huge subsistence pre-indutrial society out of absolute poverty, the most effective polocies has to be learned by pragmatism.     


Quote:

Do you see merit in the CCP's handling of covid?

Again, trying to determine the best course of action in a pandemic, when you have over a billion lives at stake, is not straight forward; 1 million died in the US with a quarter of China's population to consider, and a first world health system cf China's developing health care status. 


Quote:

If Mao was never punished, what makes you think the culture within the CCP has changed?

The Marxist philosophy ("culture") hasn't changed, while the leaders' policies have changed. 


Quote:

The current leaders grew up learning from Mao's example and seeing him rewarded for being the biggest killer in human history.

Your error (apart from sheer blind, 'freedom- values' ideological delusions):

The CCP DID learn from Mao's mistakes, and  rapidly changed course, thereby lifting more people out of absolute poverty than any nation in history.

That the CCP remembers MAO as the founder of the Marxist revolution isn't a "reward",  its a commemoration of his role a founder of the increasingly successful revolution. 

Do try to keep up.

Quote:

he wasn't trying to "feed everyone equally",  he was trying to ensure food security for all

LOL

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2024 at 3:26pm:

Quote: he wasn't trying to "feed everyone equally",  he was trying to ensure food security for all LOL

I accept your concession.

Are you trying to say that the CCP leadership grew fat while they starved millions to death?

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2024 at 2:49pm:

Are you trying to say that the CCP leadership grew fat while they starved millions to death?

Another dumb question from an ideologically-crippled brain.

No, I said the CCP leadership has achieved the fastest rate of poverty reduction of any country in history, since 1980. 

Do try tp keep up.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 2:10pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:49pm: Are you trying to say that the CCP leadership grew fat while they starved millions to death? Another dumb question from an ideologically-crippled brain. No, I said the CCP leadership has achieved the fastest rate of poverty reduction of any country in history, since 1980.  Do try tp keep up.

By refraining from starving it's citizens to death? How nice. Did they decide 100 million was enough?

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2024 at 6:46pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 2:10pm: freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:49pm: Are you trying to say that the CCP leadership grew fat while they starved millions to death? Another dumb question from an ideologically-crippled brain. No, I said the CCP leadership has achieved the fastest rate of poverty reduction of any country in history, since 1980.  Do try tp keep up. By refraining from starving it's citizens to death? How nice. Did they decide 100 million was enough?

Note: And thereafter reducing poverty at the fastest rate in history - very nice indeed.

So...the answer is yes, to both ideologically blind questions ....said poverty reduction being  a commendable move by the CCP,  don't you think? 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 2:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 6:46pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 2:10pm: freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:49pm: Are you trying to say that the CCP leadership grew fat while they starved millions to death? Another dumb question from an ideologically-crippled brain. No, I said the CCP leadership has achieved the fastest rate of poverty reduction of any country in history, since 1980.  Do try tp keep up. By refraining from starving it's citizens to death? How nice. Did they decide 100 million was enough? Note: And thereafter reducing poverty at the fastest rate in history - very nice indeed. So...the answer is yes, to both ideologically blind questions ....said poverty reduction being  a commendable move by the CCP,  don't you think?

I think they also refrained from killing their own citizens at the fastest rate in history. How many governments can claim they have killed 100 million fewer of their own citizens than they did last century?

freediver wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2024 at 4:55pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 22nd, 2024 at 2:43pm: freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2024 at 6:46pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 18th, 2024 at 2:10pm: freediver wrote on Jun 12th, 2024 at 2:49pm: Are you trying to say that the CCP leadership grew fat while they starved millions to death? Another dumb question from an ideologically-crippled brain. No, I said the CCP leadership has achieved the fastest rate of poverty reduction of any country in history, since 1980.  Do try tp keep up. By refraining from starving it's citizens to death? How nice. Did they decide 100 million was enough? Note: And thereafter reducing poverty at the fastest rate in history - very nice indeed. So...the answer is yes, to both ideologically blind questions ....said poverty reduction being  a commendable move by the CCP,  don't you think?  I think they also refrained from killing their own citizens at the fastest rate in history. How many governments can claim they have killed 100 million fewer of their own citizens than they did last century?

And increased the wealth of their  entire populations at the fastest rate in history thereafter? None.

Meanwhile our dysfunctional  blind leading the blind adversarial multi-party democracies are stuck with  entrenched poverty, increasing inequality, and disillusionment with government.

eg, Ramposa repeating the lie we hear from the leaders of all parties when they win an election: we will govern for everyone.... yet the all-black ANC has had power for 30 years with 30% unemployment and extreme inequality: the end of apartheid changed nothing except a name change.

And the current forced alliance of the ANC  with a white party will change nothing, the call for more jobs will go unanswered owing to the dysfunctioal political/economic  system.   

Then there's "the beacon on the hill" with its excruciating, mind-numbing hyperpartisan insanity.

And both parties in Oz having destroyed public housing in Oz over the last 4 decades,  because both parties wanted to reduce taxes as per the insane privatization ideology, resulting in the current housing crises which of course you refuse to even acknowledge exists. 

And the UK: Sunak trying to scare people by saying Starmer will raise taxes, while Starmer is saying is saying he will fix the NHS without raising taxes; and yesterday Sunak (facing a conservative wipe-out)  claimed that if Starmer is elected then "Labour might be in office forever"...typical mindblowing lies and nonsense adopted by  all politicians competing in adversarial democratic politics;  Trudeau is on the nose in Canada.....the list of dysfunctional democracies is endless.

And you, being a blind comfortable conservative, said "what's to see here", in the '100 millionaires pay no tax' thread.

Deplorable, go back to sleep, your crippled brain has nothing of value to offer to a world in turmoil, while the CCP is proceeding apace with the rejuvination of the Chinese nation at a pace you can only envy.   

Quote:

And increased the wealth of their  entire populations at the fastest rate in history thereafter? None.

Are you a parrot?

What is one million times zero?

How much of that rapid increase is due to the CCP being such slow learners that by the time they transitioned to capitalism, all they had to do was step back and allow the foreign investors to pour money in. The CCPs record will be broken by the next tinpot African dictatorship that does the same thing.


Quote:

Meanwhile our dysfunctional  blind leading the blind adversarial multi-party democracies are stuck with  entrenched poverty, increasing inequality, and disillusionment with government.

Entrenched poverty where our welfare is more than double the median Chinese wage.

Now say PPP without knowing what it means.


Quote:

eg, Ramposa repeating the lie we hear from the leaders of all parties when they win an election: we will govern for everyone.... yet the all-black ANC has had power for 30 years with 30% unemployment and extreme inequality: the end of apartheid changed nothing except a name change. And the current forced alliance of the ANC  with a white party will change nothing, the call for more jobs will go unanswered owing to the dysfunctioal political/economic  system.

You have gotten your countries mixed up again TGD. Are you using colour codes or something?

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 11:59am:

Quote: And increased the wealth of their  entire populations at the fastest rate in history thereafter? None. Are you a parrot?

No. I think for myself, unlike you who with zero insight can only project the failures of your own delusional "fundamental (individual)  freedoms" ideology onto the CCP.   


Quote:

What is one million times zero?

 

Zero -  the extent of your insight into your delusional "freedom values" ideology. 


Quote:

How much of that rapid increase is due to the CCP being such slow learners that by the time they transitioned to capitalism, all they had to do was step back and allow the foreign investors to pour money in.

Er ...the CCP are fast learners, the nation is now leading the world in nuclear, EVs and PVs ( and likely be the first to return material from the 'dark' side of the moon shortly.


Quote:

The CCPs record will be broken by the next tinpot African dictatorship that does the same thing.

Er... China is already the world's factory, and India is replacing the low cost area as China moves up the quality chain. No room for the 'next tinpot African dictator', who will be occupied with civil war.


Quote:

Entrenched poverty where our welfare is more than double the median Chinese wage. Now say PPP without knowing what it means.

You dementing? PPP was explained to you ie, a farmer on the median wage in China is better off than life on the dole in Oz.


Quote:

You have gotten your countries mixed up again TGD. Are you using colour codes or something?

 

Low IQ? The numerous examples of political and economic dysfunction in 'liberal' adversarial-party democracies including Oz has nothing to do with "getting countries mixed up". 

Quote:

Zero -  the extent of your insight into your delusional "freedom values" ideology.

So if the CCP give the Chinese people zero income, then increased that income a million fold, more than any other government on earth, how wealthy would the Chinese people be?


Quote:

Er ...the CCP are fast learners,

LOL. They are about 100 years behind the rest of the developed world. They were starving their own citizens to death well after the rest of the world understood why it was happening. They were only able to play catchup because they learned so slowly for a whole century.

The CCP see merit in 50 million elderly dead. Which is the reason for the uncontained spread of the WuhanFlu.

freediver wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 5:51pm:

Quote: Zero -  the extent of your insight into your delusional "freedom values" ideology. So if the CCP give the Chinese people zero income, then increased that income a million fold, more than any other government on earth, how wealthy would the Chinese people be? Low IQ? Zero wealth ...don't tell the 400 million Chinese in the middle class galavanting around the world,  or the 800 billionaires.  [quote]LOL. They are   were about 100 years behind the rest of the developed world.

Corrected it for you.


Quote:

They were starving their own citizens to death well after the rest of the world understood why it was happening. They were only able to play catchup because they learned so slowly for a whole century.

[/quote]

So...lifting more than a billion people out of absolute poverty at the fastest rate in history (while India is STILL stuck with 700 milion in absolute povety), wasn't fast enough for you......

Meanwhile, we have problems of our own, caused by your dominant flat-earth economic orthodoxy.

From Bill Mitchell' latest blog (see the MMT thread)
Oxfam noted:
"Between the COVID-19 pandemic and high inflation caused by war and corporate profiteering, it was a tough start to the decade for most. Even in relatively wealthy countries like Australia, millions of people have been pushed to the brink by rising prices of food, energy and unaffordable rent. In stark contrast, this has been a profits bonanza for some of Australia’s biggest corporations".

Bill concludes thus:

We are a long way from fixing that mess.

The journey has to start with progressive organisations such as Oxfam rejecting the mainstream macroeconomic narratives about the government being a household with financial constraints.

......

Time's running out for your unbalanced free-market ideology. 

And despite China adopting elements of the free market, it is also able to build renewables and nuclear at the fastest pace of any nation, while Oz is arguing over whether we need nuclear at all, and arguing over the cost of renewables - all because Oz wants to stick with its "market friendly" bs. 

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 3:17pm:

The CCP see merit in 50 million elderly dead. Which is the reason for the uncontained spread of the WuhanFlu.

Your error: the CCP had the strictest lock-downs in the world.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:03pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 3:17pm: The CCP see merit in 50 million elderly dead. Which is the reason for the uncontained spread of the WuhanFlu. Your error: the CCP had the strictest lock-downs in the world.

*Thhhhhpppt!*

There were media reports of Chinese students rushing to get in to Australia. Some of them were carriers of the virus. Ya reckon that might have been encouraged by Chinese authorities?

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 7:43pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 3:17pm: The CCP see merit in 50 million elderly dead. Which is the reason for the uncontained spread of the WuhanFlu. Your error: the CCP had the strictest lock-downs in the world. *Thhhhhpppt!* There were media reports of Chinese students rushing to get in to Australia. Some of them were carriers of the virus. Ya reckon that might have been encouraged by Chinese authorities?

No.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 1:12pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 7:43pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 3:17pm: The CCP see merit in 50 million elderly dead. Which is the reason for the uncontained spread of the WuhanFlu. Your error: the CCP had the strictest lock-downs in the world. *Thhhhhpppt!* There were media reports of Chinese students rushing to get in to Australia. Some of them were carriers of the virus. Ya reckon that might have been encouraged by Chinese authorities? No.

You might want to start thinking that China does not have the health of Australians in their interest.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 2:06pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 1:12pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 7:43pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:03pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 3:17pm: The CCP see merit in 50 million elderly dead. Which is the reason for the uncontained spread of the WuhanFlu. Your error: the CCP had the strictest lock-downs in the world. *Thhhhhpppt!* There were media reports of Chinese students rushing to get in to Australia. Some of them were carriers of the virus. Ya reckon that might have been encouraged by Chinese authorities? No. You might want to start thinking that China does not have the health of Australians in their interest.

So they sent infected students to Oz? 

No wonder the Pentagon can so easily sell its "China threat" bs to blind "personal responsibility" ideologues like you, and get Oz to spend a trillion dollars on subs and frigates.

Losers.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 2:23pm:

So they sent infected students to Oz?  No wonder the Pentagon can so easily sell its "China threat" bs to blind "personal responsibility" ideologues like you, and get Oz to spend a trillion dollars on subs and frigates. Losers.

The Chinese allowed their students (some of whom were infected) to continue/start their studies in Australia, despite China being in the grips of a pandemic. My own theory is that China let the virus spread through China to kill off the elderly. Chinese authorities only made a half-hearted effort to contain the coronavirus.

The Australian government is not spending one-third of a trillion dollars on submarines as a consequence of panicking over the sniffles virus getting to Australia. It is obvious that Australia is gearing up for some kind of offensive we might see in the 2030s.

Have you fathered at least 5 children, yet? Because we might need our fighting age reinforcements by then.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 6:02pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 5:51pm: Quote: Zero -  the extent of your insight into your delusional "freedom values" ideology. So if the CCP give the Chinese people zero income, then increased that income a million fold, more than any other government on earth, how wealthy would the Chinese people be? Low IQ? Zero wealth ...don't tell the 400 million Chinese in the middle class galavanting around the world,  or the 800 billionaires.  [quote]LOL. They are   were about 100 years behind the rest of the developed world. Corrected it for you. [quote]They were starving their own citizens to death well after the rest of the world understood why it was happening. They were only able to play catchup because they learned so slowly for a whole century.

[/quote]

So...lifting more than a billion people out of absolute poverty at the fastest rate in history (while India is STILL stuck with 700 milion in absolute povety), wasn't fast enough for you......
[/quote]

Of course not. Would you prefer your government stop starving its citizens to death before or after you die of starvation?

BTW, taking a century to figure out how to not slaughter people by the millions is not fast. It is slow.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 2:57pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 2:23pm: So they sent infected students to Oz?  No wonder the Pentagon can so easily sell its "China threat" bs to blind "personal responsibility" ideologues like you, and get Oz to spend a trillion dollars on subs and frigates. Losers. The Chinese allowed their students (some of whom were infected) to continue/start their studies in Australia, despite China being in the grips of a pandemic.

The whole world was in a pandemic a month after it was discovered in Wuhan, and was killing non-elderly as well as the elderly.


Quote:

My own theory is that China let the virus spread through China to kill off the elderly. Chinese authorities only made a half-hearted effort to contain the coronavirus.

You already lied about that: China had the strictest lock-down measures in the world.


Quote:

The Australian government is not spending one-third of a trillion dollars on submarines as a consequence of panicking over the sniffles virus getting to Australia.

Correct, it's spending it because of the Pentagon- instituted "China threat " theory.


Quote:

It is obvious that Australia is gearing up for some kind of offensive we might see in the 2030s.

Yes,  to fall into line with the Pentagon's desire to maintain US global hegemony.


Quote:

Have you fathered at least 5 children, yet? Because we might need our fighting age reinforcements by then.

 

Confirming you are deluded by the 'China threat' theory, all because your delusional "fundamental freedoms"  ideology is determined to support the like-minded fools in  Taiwan, despite the universally accepted 'One China' policy in the UN.   

Quote:

My own theory is that China let the virus spread through China to kill off the elderly.

It was sheer incompetence. Like with the great Chinese famine. The only difference is that this time around they did a better job covering up the death toll.

Australia universities let Chinese students get around a travel ban. Critics warn it could spread the coronavirus

I was paying attention when this was going on.

Student visa holders in and outside Australia in 2020

So, by March 20, 2020, Australia had shut its borders.

The first year resulted in the following numbers of cases and deaths in Australia


Quote:

Up to the end of 2020, there were around 28,500 cases of COVID-19, with 2 distinct peaks (or ‘waves’)   one in March/April (affecting all states and territories with most infections being acquired overseas) and one in June to September (mainly affecting Victoria with most infections being acquired via community transmission). In 2020, the majority of cases were notified in Victoria. There were around 900 deaths from COVID-19 in Australia in 2020 (909 notified through surveillance systems and 866 registered and compiled by the ABS). 89% of deaths were in Victoria and 7% in NSW. The majority of deaths were in the older age groups: 24% in the 85–89 year age group and 34% in those aged 90 and over. By 20 June 2021, there had been just over 30,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 910 deaths in Australia.

As you see, the March/April 2020 period was when there was a spike in covid numbers.

tgd:
Quote:

The whole world was in a pandemic a month after it was discovered in Wuhan, and was killing non-elderly as well as the elderly.

A month after the outbreak was December 2019. Worldwide, there was only a few cases outside of China. Australia got its first case in January 2020. The cases grew until their was a spike by March. From about April, the lockdowns had made an impact in reducing transmissions in Australia.

And even though there have been deaths related to young people dying of covid19, the vast majority of covid deaths were elderly people 70 years and over.

tgd:
Quote:

You already lied about that: China had the strictest lock-down measures in the world.

Pffft! China stopped counting their infections after a while. Are you just going to believe the Chinese managed to stop the infections and deaths from covid all of a sudden, too? Australia got international exposure as having draconian lockdown measures. Atleast, they were in Victoria (the major centre of outbreak). I just had to wear a face mask to work for about a month before the requirement was removed.

tgd:
Quote:

Correct, it's spending it because of the Pentagon- instituted "China threat " theory.

Are you not concerned at ALL about China? I figure that China will break up into some smaller countries within 10 years. Australian authorities are concerned enough about China that there might be some kind of provocation of regional conflicts that would involve Australia directly or indirectly.


Quote:

Yes,  to fall into line with the Pentagon's desire to maintain US global hegemony.

Welllll, I have developed a moderate anti-American stance in recent years. Okay, it is more about heckling the Americans because of their self-inflicted doofisms. But, I would rather the Americans to remain a superpower and continue an amicable relationship with Australia. It is better than the USA sliding into third-world status, and we (Australians) have to get dictated to by the Chinese.


Quote:

Confirming you are deluded by the 'China threat' theory, all because your delusional "fundamental freedoms"  ideology is determined to support the like-minded fools in  Taiwan, despite the universally accepted 'One China' policy in the UN.

I am motivated by being politically aware of what goes on in the world. For the last 31 years of my life, I have kept note of how the world treats Western and American influence. Given that you are such a left-wing lunatic, you would be aware of how much hatred the West (and the USA) gets from non-Western societies.

I disagree with the "One China" policy. China can simply work with Taiwan and Hong Kong as separate entities and not engage in hostilities. Otherwise, if there is an escalation in tensions in the region, either you are going to sign up for the military. Or you can get your children to go to war for you. Given that I doubt you have a desire to procreate, and you don't seem like the type that would fight for your country (at least, not Australia), I won't hold your views as worthy.

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:20pm:

Quote: My own theory is that China let the virus spread through China to kill off the elderly. It was sheer incompetence. Like with the great Chinese famine. The only difference is that this time around they did a better job covering up the death toll.

The Chinese stopped counting infections and death tolls of the coronavirus. We have no way of knowing how many people in China have been infected or have died. Much like the Chinese people in the 1960s did not band together to overthrow the Chinese government of the time because they were not informed (because of media censorship) that there had been a mass starvation in China.

China is authoritarian enough to keep their citizens at home and wait out the virus in ONE particular region. They did not because they did not care about the virus sweeping through China and killing off the elderly. Then internationally the virus was allowed to spread to disrupt the economies of the world.

I think there was a story about how the influenza virus in Middle Age England caused so much disruption that the Scottish decided to take advantage and conquer England. Except that it backfired on the Scottish because townships in Scotland had their own outbreaks of the influenza. That evened the score.

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 3:10pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:02pm: freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 5:51pm: Quote: Zero -  the extent of your insight into your delusional "freedom values" ideology. So if the CCP give the Chinese people zero income, then increased that income a million fold, more than any other government on earth, how wealthy would the Chinese people be? Low IQ? Zero wealth ...don't tell the 400 million Chinese in the middle class galavanting around the world,  or the 800 billionaires.  [quote]LOL. They are   were about 100 years behind the rest of the developed world. Corrected it for you. [quote]They were starving their own citizens to death well after the rest of the world understood why it was happening. They were only able to play catchup because they learned so slowly for a whole century.

So...lifting more than a billion people out of absolute poverty at the fastest rate in history (while India is STILL stuck with 700 milion in absolute povety), wasn't fast enough for you......
[/quote]

Of course not. [/quote]

Then you are a blind ideologue bent on projecting the failures of delusional "fundamental freedoms' ideology and its egregious effects on the Oz population - as outlined in the Oxfam report (which you continue to ignore, being blind).      


Quote:

Would you prefer your government stop starving its citizens to death before or after you die of starvation?

 

Before, why do you ask such a dumb question?

The relevant  question today (not confusing yourself with events which occured 70 years ago) is why do think the current cost of living crisis and homelessness crisis  in Oz is acceptable?


Quote:

BTW, taking a century to figure out how to not slaughter people by the millions is not fast. It is slow.

Wrong again, it took only 2 decades, from the start of the famine to Deng's reforms which thereafter eradicated poverty faster than any nation in history.

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:20pm:

Quote: My own theory is that China let the virus spread through China to kill off the elderly. It was sheer incompetence. Like with the great Chinese famine. The only difference is that this time around they did a better job covering up the death toll.

Well, at least you disposed of Sub's silly theory; but as to "incompetence" in dealing with a vast population in a developing country faced with a potentially catastrophic pandemic, you are not equipped to judge "competence".

OTOH, this from a Western commentator today (on China’s Chang’e-6 safe return to Earth with first-ever lunar far side samples, completed today):

“I do think a successful conclusion to this very complex mission [Chang’e-6] will show that Chang’e-5 was not just a fluke, and that Chinese space engineers really have mastered the challenges of carrying out these very difficult missions far from Earth, it's a real step forward in the maturity of the Chinese space effort,” Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the US, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

There's competence for you.



   

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:59pm:

Pffft! China stopped counting their infections after a while.

Low IQ?

The strictest lockdowns in the world were ancillary to counting deaths in the world's most populous nation (along with India).

Cf the million dead in the US with its sloppy lockdowns in disputatious states. 


Quote:

Are you just going to believe the Chinese managed to stop the infections and deaths from covid all of a sudden, too?

 

No, what gve you that idea? 


Quote:

Are you not concerned at ALL about China?

No. In 5000 years China has waxed and waned according to sovereignty disputes on adjoining lands, it has never colonized overseas countries (except Taiwan which is 100 kms from the mainland). 


Quote:

I figure that China will break up into some smaller countries within 10 years.

In your dreams?

The UN - with its 'One China' policy - doesn't include China in its list of colonizing or occupying powers.   


Quote:

Welllll, I have developed a moderate anti-American stance in recent years. Okay, it is more about heckling the Americans because of their self-inflicted doofisms.

You should be calling out their insistence on global hegemony, involving them in countless proxy  wars since WW2, including the present Ukraine war. (See what Nigel Farage has to say about it).


Quote:

But, I would rather the Americans to remain a superpower and continue an amicable relationship with Australia. It is better than the USA sliding into third-world status, and we (Australians) have to get dictated to by the Chinese.

Yep, you have fallen for the "China threat" theory.


Quote:

I am motivated by being politically aware of what goes on in the world. For the last 31 years of my life, I have kept note of how the world treats Western and American influence. Given that you are such a left-wing lunatic, you would be aware of how much hatred the West (and the USA) gets from non-Western societies.

You bet; so why do 4 to 5 billion people despise the US- led West?


Quote:

I disagree with the "One China" policy. China can simply work with Taiwan and Hong Kong as separate entities and not engage in hostilities.

So you are insisting the Chinese people in HK and Taiwan be divided by ideology, with the loony "freedom values" mob free to claim sovereignty and separate from the motherland.

No nation would accept it.   


Quote:

Otherwise, if there is an escalation in tensions in the region, either you are going to sign up for the military....

Just to let you know, if that situation ever arises as a result of US global hegemonic desires, I'l be coming for you, not China.    


Quote:

you don't seem like the type that would fight for your country (at least, not Australia), I won't hold your views as worthy.

Bingo, you delusional "freedom or death" war-mongering  ideologue.

Obviously the Anzacs died in vain...while you are intent on breeding the next crop of cannon fodder.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 6:24pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 3:10pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:02pm: freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 5:51pm: Quote: Zero -  the extent of your insight into your delusional "freedom values" ideology. So if the CCP give the Chinese people zero income, then increased that income a million fold, more than any other government on earth, how wealthy would the Chinese people be? Low IQ? Zero wealth ...don't tell the 400 million Chinese in the middle class galavanting around the world,  or the 800 billionaires.  [quote]LOL. They are   were about 100 years behind the rest of the developed world. Corrected it for you. [quote]They were starving their own citizens to death well after the rest of the world understood why it was happening. They were only able to play catchup because they learned so slowly for a whole century. So...lifting more than a billion people out of absolute poverty at the fastest rate in history (while India is STILL stuck with 700 milion in absolute povety), wasn't fast enough for you......

Of course not. [/quote]

Then you are a blind ideologue bent on projecting the failures of delusional "fundamental freedoms' ideology and its egregious effects on the Oz population - as outlined in the Oxfam report (which you continue to ignore, being blind).      


Quote:

Would you prefer your government stop starving its citizens to death before or after you die of starvation?

 

Before, why do you ask such a dumb question?

The relevant  question today (not confusing yourself with events which occured 70 years ago) is why do think the current cost of living crisis and homelessness crisis  in Oz is acceptable?


Quote:

BTW, taking a century to figure out how to not slaughter people by the millions is not fast. It is slow.

Wrong again, it took only 2 decades, from the start of the famine to Deng's reforms which thereafter eradicated poverty faster than any nation in history.
[/quote]

Because you post such incredibly stupid propaganda for the CCP. Taking a century and killing 100 million of your own citizens along the way is not fast learning.

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:18pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 6:24pm: freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 3:10pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:02pm: freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 5:51pm: Quote: Zero -  the extent of your insight into your delusional "freedom values" ideology. So if the CCP give the Chinese people zero income, then increased that income a million fold, more than any other government on earth, how wealthy would the Chinese people be? Low IQ? Zero wealth ...don't tell the 400 million Chinese in the middle class galavanting around the world,  or the 800 billionaires.  [quote]LOL. They are   were about 100 years behind the rest of the developed world. Corrected it for you. [quote]They were starving their own citizens to death well after the rest of the world understood why it was happening. They were only able to play catchup because they learned so slowly for a whole century. So...lifting more than a billion people out of absolute poverty at the fastest rate in history (while India is STILL stuck with 700 milion in absolute povety), wasn't fast enough for you...... Of course not.

Then you are a blind ideologue bent on projecting the failures of delusional "fundamental freedoms' ideology and its egregious effects on the Oz population - as outlined in the Oxfam report (which you continue to ignore, being blind).      


Quote:

Would you prefer your government stop starving its citizens to death before or after you die of starvation?

 

Before, why do you ask such a dumb question?

The relevant  question today (not confusing yourself with events which occured 70 years ago) is why do think the current cost of living crisis and homelessness crisis  in Oz is acceptable?


Quote:

BTW, taking a century to figure out how to not slaughter people by the millions is not fast. It is slow.

Wrong again, it took only 2 decades, from the start of the famine to Deng's reforms which thereafter eradicated poverty faster than any nation in history.
[/quote]

Because you post such incredibly stupid propaganda for the CCP. Taking a century and killing 100 million of your own citizens along the way is not fast learning.[/quote]

Stupid propaganda?

I'm happy to let the above exchange stand as is; it reveals the shocking incapacity of your blind "freedom values" brain.

It' time to get back to your 'foundations' thread' (which you abandoned), to see if you can save your delusional "freedom values" ideology.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 7:26pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 7:18pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 6:24pm: freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 3:10pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:02pm: freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 5:51pm: Quote: Zero -  the extent of your insight into your delusional "freedom values" ideology. So if the CCP give the Chinese people zero income, then increased that income a million fold, more than any other government on earth, how wealthy would the Chinese people be? Low IQ? Zero wealth ...don't tell the 400 million Chinese in the middle class galavanting around the world,  or the 800 billionaires.  [quote]LOL. They are   were about 100 years behind the rest of the developed world. Corrected it for you. [quote]They were starving their own citizens to death well after the rest of the world understood why it was happening. They were only able to play catchup because they learned so slowly for a whole century. So...lifting more than a billion people out of absolute poverty at the fastest rate in history (while India is STILL stuck with 700 milion in absolute povety), wasn't fast enough for you...... Of course not. Then you are a blind ideologue bent on projecting the failures of delusional "fundamental freedoms' ideology and its egregious effects on the Oz population - as outlined in the Oxfam report (which you continue to ignore, being blind).       [quote]Would you prefer your government stop starving its citizens to death before or after you die of starvation?

 

Before, why do you ask such a dumb question?

The relevant  question today (not confusing yourself with events which occured 70 years ago) is why do think the current cost of living crisis and homelessness crisis  in Oz is acceptable?


Quote:

BTW, taking a century to figure out how to not slaughter people by the millions is not fast. It is slow.

Wrong again, it took only 2 decades, from the start of the famine to Deng's reforms which thereafter eradicated poverty faster than any nation in history.
[/quote]

Because you post such incredibly stupid propaganda for the CCP. Taking a century and killing 100 million of your own citizens along the way is not fast learning.[/quote]

Stupid propaganda?

I'm happy to let the above exchange stand as is; it reveals the shocking incapacity of your blind "freedom values" brain.

It' time to get back to your 'foundations' thread' (which you abandoned), to see if you can save your delusional "freedom values" ideology.
[/quote]

It was money from all those "freedom values" countries that poured into China to lift living standards. All the CCP learned after 100 years and 100 million deaths was to get out of the way and let it happen.

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 8:54pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 7:26pm: freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 7:18pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 6:24pm: freediver wrote on Jun 25th, 2024 at 3:10pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 24th, 2024 at 6:02pm: freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2024 at 5:51pm: Quote: Zero -  the extent of your insight into your delusional "freedom values" ideology. So if the CCP give the Chinese people zero income, then increased that income a million fold, more than any other government on earth, how wealthy would the Chinese people be? Low IQ? Zero wealth ...don't tell the 400 million Chinese in the middle class galavanting around the world,  or the 800 billionaires.  [quote]LOL. They are   were about 100 years behind the rest of the developed world. Corrected it for you. [quote]They were starving their own citizens to death well after the rest of the world understood why it was happening. They were only able to play catchup because they learned so slowly for a whole century. So...lifting more than a billion people out of absolute poverty at the fastest rate in history (while India is STILL stuck with 700 milion in absolute povety), wasn't fast enough for you...... Of course not. Then you are a blind ideologue bent on projecting the failures of delusional "fundamental freedoms' ideology and its egregious effects on the Oz population - as outlined in the Oxfam report (which you continue to ignore, being blind).       [quote]Would you prefer your government stop starving its citizens to death before or after you die of starvation?   Before, why do you ask such a dumb question? The relevant  question today (not confusing yourself with events which occured 70 years ago) is why do think the current cost of living crisis and homelessness crisis  in Oz is acceptable? [quote]BTW, taking a century to figure out how to not slaughter people by the millions is not fast. It is slow.

Wrong again, it took only 2 decades, from the start of the famine to Deng's reforms which thereafter eradicated poverty faster than any nation in history.
[/quote]

Because you post such incredibly stupid propaganda for the CCP. Taking a century and killing 100 million of your own citizens along the way is not fast learning.[/quote]

Stupid propaganda?

I'm happy to let the above exchange stand as is; it reveals the shocking incapacity of your blind "freedom values" brain.

It' time to get back to your 'foundations' thread' (which you abandoned), to see if you can save your delusional "freedom values" ideology.
[/quote]

It was money from all those "freedom values" countries that poured into China to lift living standards. All the CCP learned after 100 years and 100 million deaths was to get out of the way and let it happen.[/quote]

Er... no, it was the in part command economy which enabled China to become the world's factory.

Now the liberal democracies are crying because they can't compete. 

Quote:

Er... no, it was the in part command economy which enabled China to become the world's factory.

It was the command economy that starved 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally. It was the liberalising of the economy that lead to the influx of foreign investment and surge in productivity.

Do you think it is reasonable for a government to need to kill nearly 100 million of their own people over about a century in order to "learn" how to run the country? When they are surrounded by other countries showing them how to do it the easy way? How does that make China a meritocracy?

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 5:15am:

Quote: Er... no, it was the in part command economy which enabled China to become the world's factory. It was the command economy that starved 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally.

Your blind, ugly 'reward according to ability alone' ideology creates your fraudulent narrative "trying to feed them all equally" . (Marx said "from each according to abilty, to each according to need"; you of course worship the reverse).

I already exposed your error some posts back,  your blind,  despicable fraudulent ideology: trying to ensure  sufficient food for all is NOT "trying to feed everyone equally" - another version of the conservative "equality of outcome" lie.   

You keep recycling the same nonsense over and over again, while you - like all conservatives -   insist poverty is 'normal' and can't be eradicted.

You must be hoping people just read the last post, which is why you think you can just keep recycling your despicable ideology over and over.

Deplorable. 


Re "command economy": in fact the dual command-market  econonmy has led to China leading the wolrd  in PVs and EVs, and also SMRs  - the latter failing in the US because private companies can't make a profit out of them, whereas China can support the development of SMRs via state subsidization.

You lose.   

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 25^th, 2024 at 4:59pm:

I am motivated by being politically aware of what goes on in the world. For the last 31 years of my life, I have kept note of how the world treats Western and American influence. Given that you are such a left-wing lunatic, you would be aware of how much hatred the West (and the USA) gets from non-Western societies.

Well deserved hatred, though not recognized by "freedom or death " ideologues like you who reject an effective international rules based system, and so are  always planning for the next war, even demanding the population breed the next crop of cannon fodder.

Bob Carr has nailed it:

tweet

Whatever you think about Assange, the fact is he was imprisoned for one reason: he exposed a bloody war crime committed by US troops against unarmed Iraqi civilians.

All in the name  of defending ideology-based  "foundational freedoms", defended by the "America First" US, of course. 

No thanks.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 12:26pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2024 at 5:15am: Quote: Er... no, it was the in part command economy which enabled China to become the world's factory. It was the command economy that starved 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally. Your blind, ugly 'reward according to ability alone' ideology creates your fraudulent narrative "trying to feed them all equally" . (Marx said "from each according to abilty, to each according to need"; you of course worship the reverse). I already exposed your error some posts back,  your blind,  despicable fraudulent ideology: trying to ensure  sufficient food for all is NOT "trying to feed everyone equally" - another version of the conservative "equality of outcome" lie.    You keep recycling the same nonsense over and over again, while you - like all conservatives -   insist poverty is 'normal' and can't be eradicted. You must be hoping people just read the last post, which is why you think you can just keep recycling your despicable ideology over and over. Deplorable.  Re "command economy": in fact the dual command-market  econonmy has led to China leading the wolrd  in PVs and EVs, and also SMRs  - the latter failing in the US because private companies can't make a profit out of them, whereas China can support the development of SMRs via state subsidization. You lose.

What do you think is wrong with my characterization of the Great Chinese Famine as trying to feed them all equally? Was it nothing more than Mao wanting to kill all the wealthy farmers and food merchants, with no end goal in mind?

How much of China's recent increase in standard of living do you think would have been possible without all the foreign money, ideas and technology that flooded in as soon as the CCP removed it's hands from around the neck of the Chinese people?

Do you think it is reasonable for a government to need to kill nearly 100 million of their own people over about a century in order to "learn" how to run the country? When they are surrounded by other countries showing them how to do it the easy way? How does that make China a meritocracy?

thegreatdivide,


Quote:

The strictest lockdowns in the world were ancillary to counting deaths in the world's most populous nation (along with India).

I would say that the reason why China stopped counting the number of deaths, let alone infections, from covid related diseases was because it would have been overwhelming to conduct a count. China was not strict on lockdowns. The Chinese did do lockdowns. But, they were not going to stop people from leaving the country.

Australia stopped international travel by March 2020. Melbourne had strict lockdowns. Australia ended up having a low rate of infections up until international travel was reinstated. Then we ended up having quite high rates of infection right around the country.

The United States had a poor record with covid, because some of their citizens had this idea of undeniable rights that allowed them to mingle during their lockdowns. Ergo, the reason for the quick spread of infections. The death toll in the United States (latest figures) are about 1,200,000+ people having died of the coronavirus related illness. Australia lost 24,000+ people to coronavirus. We have a better health care system in Australian than America or China. The Americans go on about their rights. The Chinese have few rights. And although we have rights, we earn to keep these rights by acting responsibly.

Regarding tgd's gullibility of China's lockdowns --
tgd:
Quote:

No, what gve you that idea?

The way you went on about China having strict lockdowns as a reason for their infection control, after I went on about China not counting their dead after "a while" after the coronavirus outbreak began. If you are gullible enough to think China arrested their coronavirus infections, you really need to step away and think things through. Otherwise, people will see you as "the spokesperson for the CCP".


Quote:

In 5000 years China has waxed and waned according to sovereignty disputes on adjoining lands, it has never colonized overseas countries (except Taiwan which is 100 kms from the mainland).

China is also about 75 years old as one country. China had been colonising other countries by sending their people and creating "Chinatowns" in white majority countries. Other than Japan, there are very few non-white majority countries that allow this to happen. If the Chinese wanted to take over Taiwan, they would. But the undercurrent of democratic movement is starting to take on China. The government won't have much support to take over Taiwan soon.


Quote:

he UN - with its 'One China' policy - doesn't include China in its list of colonizing or occupying powers.

That is irrelevant to what I said with my belief about China breaking up into several countries inside the next 10 years. It happened with the Soviet Union. It will happen with China. Democratic change will ensure the dissolution of China.


Quote:

You should be calling out their insistence on global hegemony, involving them in countless proxy  wars since WW2, including the present Ukraine war. (See what Nigel Farage has to say about it).

The United States are having fewer and fewer new recruits for their military every year. The Americans had to pull out of Afghanistan because of the Ukraine issue about was to take effect. The USA has a lot of smart people over there that invest in places all over the world. I have to agree with you about most wars in the world are provoked by the USA.


Quote:

Yep, you have fallen for the "China threat" theory.

So? If China stops buying our exports, we are in for a hell of a time finding replacement trading partners. And if we piss off the Chinese with inquisitions and other insults, we are going to get the arse for trading with China. Scott Morrison has shown us how hypersensitive the Chinese government can be.


Quote:

so why do 4 to 5 billion people despise the US- led West?

They don't. They just have a problem with the United States (which is more "sub-Western" than "Western") due to the USA bombing their countries and killing innocent civilians. "Western" countries are the envy for many of those 4 to 5 billion people who earn no more than a third of what the average Americans earn. Central Americans like to move to places like the USA to get away from their failed states. But Asians, Middle Eastern, Arab and African people prefer to move to Europe.

USR:
Quote:

I disagree with the "One China" policy. China can simply work with Taiwan and Hong Kong as separate entities and not engage in hostilities.

tgd:
Quote:

So you are insisting the Chinese people in HK and Taiwan be divided by ideology, with the loony "freedom values" mob free to claim sovereignty and separate from the motherland. No nation would accept it.

No. I was suggesting that China remain China without the acquisition of Taiwan. Hong Kong is an autonomous state -- and they even have Olympians representing HK as a nation. Hong Kong has its problems of refugees moving to HK from mainland China. The refugees are trying to escape the suppressive China.


Quote:

Just to let you know, if that situation ever arises as a result of US global hegemonic desires, I'l be coming for you, not China.

Aha. We have a treasonable person called "thegreatdivide" here at OzPolitic. I get the feeling your stomach growls when a dog barks.

The United States has its hands full with other matters. A war with China would be disastrous.

Quote:

Bingo, you delusional "freedom or death" war-mongering  ideologue. Obviously the Anzacs died in vain...while you are intent on breeding the next crop of cannon fodder.

My great uncle fought in New Guinea during WW2. He did not go to his grave -- many years later -- thinking that he wasted his time fighting to keep Australia free of the Japanese. And Uncle James would be rolling in his grave if he found out that we stood by and did nothing to trying and pressure China to back off Taiwan. I can imagine him shaking his head in disbelief if Australia lost trade with China with new deals struck with PNG.

I doubt that my daughters would participate in WW3, even though one of them is an army reservist. But, the likes of you (you CCP spokesperson) would lead us being overrun with worthless refugees from all over the world, so that wages would fall relative to the cost of living. Then the Chinese might want to bargain for better deals for our natural resources.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 4:14pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 26th, 2024 at 12:26pm: freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2024 at 5:15am: Quote: Er... no, it was the in part command economy which enabled China to become the world's factory. It was the command economy that starved 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally. Your blind, ugly 'reward according to ability alone' ideology creates your fraudulent narrative "trying to feed them all equally" . (Marx said "from each according to abilty, to each according to need"; you of course worship the reverse). I already exposed your error some posts back,  your blind,  despicable fraudulent ideology: trying to ensure  sufficient food for all is NOT "trying to feed everyone equally" - another version of the conservative "equality of outcome" lie.    You keep recycling the same nonsense over and over again, while you - like all conservatives -   insist poverty is 'normal' and can't be eradicted. You must be hoping people just read the last post, which is why you think you can just keep recycling your despicable ideology over and over. Deplorable.  Re "command economy": in fact the dual command-market  econonmy has led to China leading the wolrd  in PVs and EVs, and also SMRs  - the latter failing in the US because private companies can't make a profit out of them, whereas China can support the development of SMRs via state subsidization. You lose.    What do you think is wrong with my characterization of the Great Chinese Famine as trying to feed them all equally?

Can't you read?

"I already exposed your error some posts back, ( a reflection of) your blind,  despicable fraudulent ideology: trying to ensure  sufficient food for all is NOT "trying to feed everyone equally" - another version of the conservative "equality of outcome" lie.   


So you need further explanation (assuming you CAN read)?

Let it sink in this time. The goal of poverty eradication is NOT the same as  the Right's strawman aka  "equality of outcome".

In an absolute-poverty/subsistence agriculture nation with frequent shortages of food, the first requirement is to increase the food supply, not to "feed everyone equally", but to ensure the nation increases its productivity and produces enough food.

The CCP, as professed followers of Marxism, strove to lift ALL the people out of poverty, not just some as was the norm in capitalist states; but the CCP had no guidelines  how to achive a socialist revolution in  China (Marx was concerned with the economies of industrial nations).

You of course are a deluded" freedom" ideolgue who thinks  self-interested free individuals will magically  create common prosperity in free markets with minimal government ownership of the nation's resources.

But the chickens are coming home to roost: Macron is warning of civil war in France, and in the US:

(Daily Mail)

Texas secessionist names 5 states he's working with to bust up America

Texas' top secessionist has revealed he's working with pro-independence groups in five US states to break up the union.

Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM), says he's hatching plans with self-rule activists in California, New Hampshire, Alaska, Florida, and Louisiana.

Ah -- the joys of "freedom" and democratic elections



Quote:

How much of China's recent increase in standard of living do you think would have been possible without all the foreign money, ideas and technology that flooded in as soon as the CCP removed it's hands from around the neck of the Chinese people?

Most of it: it was the hard work of the Chinese people governed by a single authority which increased the standard of living, after China became the world's factory. 


Quote:

Do you think it is reasonable for a government to need to kill nearly 100 million of their own people over about a century in order to "learn" how to run the country? When they are surrounded by other countries showing them how to do it the easy way? How does that make China a meritocracy?

A mostly blind "freedom" ideologues'  narrative:

re "the easy way":

(google)

Since 1990, income inequality has increased in most developed countries and in some middle-income countries, including China and India. While inequality has gone up in the majority of countries over the past three decades, it has fallen in a few.

But in China, absolute poverty has been eradicated, whereas in Oz, homlessness is increasing, home ownership is falling, and rents are increasingly unaffordable.. oh, and demand on food charities has never been higher.   

The "easy way", indeed...... 

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 2:37am:

Quote: I would say that the reason why China stopped counting the number of deaths, let alone infections, from covid related diseases was because it would have been overwhelming to conduct a count. China was not strict on lockdowns. The Chinese did do lockdowns. But, they were not going to stop people from leaving the country. If you say so. I recall the West's media having a field-day  with people's doors being welded shut in China.  [quote]The United States had a poor record with covid, because some of their citizens had this idea of undeniable rights that allowed them to mingle during their lockdowns.[quote]  Ergo, the reason for the quick spread of infections.

In contrast to China where the government welded doors shut....


Quote:

The death toll in the United States (latest figures) are about 1,200,000+ people having died of the coronavirus related illness. Australia lost 24,000+ people to coronavirus. We have a better health care system in Australian than America or China. The Americans go on about their rights. The Chinese have few rights. And although we have rights, we earn to keep these rights by acting responsibly.

Agree, except for your concept of "rights". Obviously the right to prosperous participation in the nation's affairs  is worth more than the right to vote in (mostly) inconsequential elections. 


Quote:

If you are gullible enough to think China arrested their coronavirus infections, you really need to step away and think things through. Otherwise, people will see you as "the spokesperson for the CCP".

How many died from Covid, in China?   


Quote:

China is also about 75 years old as one country.

Factually wrong: China reached it's greatest-ever extent as one country c.1750, under the Qing dynasty (including all of Mongolia).   


Quote:

China had been colonising other countries by sending their people and creating "Chinatowns" in white majority countries

Wrong again; "Chinatowns" never claimed sovereignty (aka 'colonization') over the host cities.


Quote:

If the Chinese wanted to take over Taiwan, they would. But the undercurrent of democratic movement is starting to take on China. The government won't have much support to take over Taiwan soon.

Er....the Pentagon is stopping a Chinese "takeover" of Taiwan. China can live with it unless the US recognizes Taiwan as an independent natioin, then all bets would be off.

Then you'll have a chance to send your cannon-fodder offspring to the Taiwan Strait....


Quote:

That is irrelevant to what I said with my belief about China breaking up into several countries inside the next 10 years. It happened with the Soviet Union. It will happen with China. Democratic change will ensure the dissolution of China.

Wrong again; the US will break up before China: see my previous  post to FD. The Soviet economy was never more than half that of the US, whereas  China is much more powerful and rapidly approaching parity with the US.


Quote:

I have to agree with you about most wars in the world are provoked by the USA.

Thanks. 


Quote:

So? If China stops buying our exports, we are in for a hell of a time finding replacement trading partners. And if we piss off the Chinese with inquisitions and other insults, we are going to get the arse for trading with China. Scott Morrison has shown us how hypersensitive the Chinese government can be.

But China wanted to trade with us; things first turned sour in 2017 when Turnbull blocked Huawei at the behest of the Pentagon on trumped up "security' concerns, and Morrison cemented the ill-will with nuclear subs designed to prevent China's assertion of its (UN recognized) sovereignty over Taiwan.

Hence the bs about a "China threat" which has Oz spending half a $trillion on subs and frigates .... losers.

Some highspeed rail would be much more useful\, even Indonesia has 142 kms (built by China of course); Oz is still talking about a Sydney-Newcastle line.

cont.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 2:37am:

They don't. They just have a problem with the United States (which is more "sub-Western" than "Western") due to the USA bombing their countries and killing innocent civilians. "Western" countries are the envy for many of those 4 to 5 billion people who earn no more than a third of what the average Americans earn. Central Americans like to move to places like the USA to get away from their failed states. But Asians, Middle Eastern, Arab and African people prefer to move to Europe.

All correct, except much of the non-"Western" world respects China's development model for having lifted more people out of poverty at a faster rate than any nation in history.


Quote:

No. I was suggesting that China remain China without the acquisition of Taiwan. Hong Kong is an autonomous state -- and they even have Olympians representing HK as a nation. Hong Kong has its problems of refugees moving to HK from mainland China. The refugees are trying to escape the suppressive China.

HK is an "autonomous" state,  aka SAR of China.

And as for the Olympics:

(google)

"For any gold medal ceremony, the Hong Kong SAR flag is raised and the PRC national anthem is played, even in situations where athletes from China won silver or bronze, resulting in the Hong Kong SAR flag flying above that of China. This is permitted under the constitution promulgated by the PRC prior to the handover (specifically, Article 151, Chapter 7 of the Basic Law) [/i]

A smart move by the PRC, given strong separatist feelings among "democracy" ideologues  ( a minority of the population) in HK.

But as for independence, you're dreamin'.

And not all Taiwanese want to secede from China, the secessionist DPP only holds 40% of the seats in Taiwan's parliament.


Quote:

Aha. We have a treasonable person called "thegreatdivide" here at OzPolitic. I get the feeling your stomach growls when a dog barks.

I certainly despise the "freedom or death" war-mongers who reject an effective international rules based order as envisioned by our own Doc Evatt in 1946, at the creation of the UN Charter "to save mankind from the scouge of war", but was rejected by the US and USSR  who demanded access to the UNSC veto.

I'm with Assange, you can stick all your government ASIO "security" secrecy bs where the sun doesn't shine.


Quote:

And Uncle James would be rolling in his grave if he found out that we stood by and did nothing to trying and pressure China to back off Taiwan. I can imagine him shaking his head in disbelief if Australia lost trade with China with new deals struck with PNG.

Yeah, Uncle James was fighting in a war which resulted in the (bungled as noted above) creation of the UN. So  now you want to stick you nose in China's domestic concerns, and risk WW3. Loser.


Quote:

I  doubt that my daughters would participate in WW3, even though one of them is an army reservist.

Here you go, mindlessly, breezily speculating about WW3; you have no respect for life - except your own sorry a*se of course. Millions will die in WW3 (and Einstein warned the war after that would be fought with sticks and stones....). 


Quote:

But, the likes of you (you CCP spokesperson) would lead us being overrun with worthless refugees from all over the world, so that wages would fall relative to the cost of living. Then the Chinese might want to bargain for better deals for our natural resources.

Er ...I though you were talking about WW3, not  trade bargaining....

thegreatdivide,

You have to be one of the most mouthy posters with whom I have ever engaged a discussion. And you are very naive. What are you? 20 years old?

China was the epicentre of where the coronavirus started. If they were strict on lockdowns, as much as what Australia was with our lockdowns, then the virus would not have got out of China and into countries like Iran, Italy, Thailand, all within short time in early 2020.


Quote:

In contrast to China where the government welded doors shut

I did not believe you at first about that. But I looked it up and found it to be true. Still, millions of Chinese people would not have died from Covid19, if they indeed took drastic measures to stop the virus from spreading.


Quote:

How many died from Covid, in China?

Estimates range as high as 5 million. There were 5 million more deaths in China than the previous year before covid took hold in the year 2020. Some of those extra deaths could probably be attributed to covid. I would not be surprised if 2 million Chinese people died in the first year and the other 3 million died in the last 3 years from covid related illnesses. Heck, maybe Chinese authorities shot some of the infected to prevent further spread. Who knows? The Chinese stopped counting their dead a long time ago.


Quote:

Factually wrong: China reached it's greatest-ever extent as one country c.1750, under the Qing dynasty (including all of Mongolia).

China in 1750 might well be called "China". But it was not one country. China would have had a series of rulers during the 18th century. I will have to dust off my Modern History of China textbook I had back in the late 1990s and read up on this. But my memory of doing this subject 25 years ago has enough recollection that the ruler of the time had regional leaders who did their own thing.

I could imagine that 1750s China would have those in Beijing having little to no knowledge of what goes on 500 or more kilometres away. They would need messenger people to ride their way to the city to give them news about conflicts brewing. Not like today, where the high tech communications of China means that access to the internet is all that is needed to get whatever information the Chinese authorities need.


Quote:

"Chinatowns" never claimed sovereignty (aka 'colonization') over the host cities.

Have you ever been to Chinatown? Have you ever been to a suburb that has a high proportion of ethnic minorities. If you are white (which I doubt), you would find that people look at you with those "what the hell are you doing here?" facial expressions. The Chinese have had a reputation of buying up housing in Australia, no matter the cost. Have you got the feeling that maybe the Chinese are trying to get their people into Australia so that they could influence Australian decision making?


Quote:

Er....the Pentagon is stopping a Chinese "takeover" of Taiwan. China can live with it unless the US recognizes Taiwan as an independent natioin, then all bets would be off. Then you'll have a chance to send your cannon-fodder offspring to the Taiwan Strait....

Oh come on. There must have been a number of times over the years that the USA has expressed that Taiwan must remain independent. And China has not snapped and invaded Taiwan yet. The Chinese military are too busy trying to suppress its own mainland citizens. It is a fight that they are losing bit by bit every year.

And if a war did break out between China and the United States, it would have to be China being the aggressor before you can claim that my daughter is going to fight as part of the navy personnel. Otherwise, stiff schitt to the USA.


Quote:

the US will break up before China: see my previous  post to FD. The Soviet economy was never more than half that of the US, whereas  China is much more powerful and rapidly approaching parity with the US.

You might have a point about the United States breaking into a few separate countries. But, maybe you took inspiration from that recent movie "Civil War". I would say that the United States is more "united" than you realise. The disparity of wealth is relatively more even  in China than the USA. I might be wrong though. The richest 140 million Chinese people control about two-thirds of the wealth of China. Whereas 30 million Americans control about two-thirds of the wealth of the United States.

In any event, democracy is a big issue for both countries. The USA has democracy. But it is such a flawed democracy that just about every election since the year 2000 has been heavily disputed. The last federal election in the USA ended with protestors storming the Capitol. If China was to become democratic, we would probably see the dissolution of the country into manageable provinces so that the region can survive and prosper. Otherwise, I see China collapsing as one entity without democratic change.


Quote:

But China wanted to trade with us; things first turned sour in 2017 when Turnbull blocked Huawei at the behest of the Pentagon on trumped up "security' concerns, and Morrison cemented the ill-will with nuclear subs designed to prevent China's assertion of its (UN recognized) sovereignty over Taiwan.

Guess what, China is trying to assert its authority over Australian trade. They want better deals from Australia. Check Bobby's topic of Australia practically giving away our gas to China.

thegreatdivide,


Quote:

except much of the non-"Western" world respects China's development model for having lifted more people out of poverty at a faster rate than any nation in history.

There is nothing wrong with that statement. China implemented the one-child policy in 1978. The effects starting taking shape by the mid-1990s. When the problem arose of there being an inverted population pyramid starting to take shape, the authorities in China relaxed the rules to be two-child. Then it was three-children. Now, China, having a lower births per women rate than Australia's is now allowing their citizens to have as many children as they can afford. The only issue here is that women in China have had rights granted to them in the last few decades that they are deciding to limit their child numbers, and be career women.

China's population is falling and was overtaken by India as the world's most populous nation. With low birthrates and women being career minded in China, the economy is changing so that a higher standard of living is enabled. That is part of the reason why I think China will democratise and perhaps become several countries in future. China is a strong economy, but needs to be macromanaged as separate regional countries.


Quote:

I certainly despise the "freedom or death" war-mongers who reject an effective international rules based order as envisioned by our own Doc Evatt in 1946, at the creation of the UN Charter "to save mankind from the scouge of war", but was rejected by the US and USSR  who demanded access to the UNSC veto. I'm with Assange, you can stick all your government ASIO "security" secrecy bs where the sun doesn't shine.

I am siding with Assange, too. But Assange could have handle the dissemination of military footage much better. Perhaps not release the footage to the public without considering the ramifications.

As for Doc Evatt, I don't know much about him. But, I do know that 1946 was 78 years ago -- and Evatt has been dead since 1965. So, Mr Evatt is not around to defend himself or elaborate on whatever he is alleged to have said. Let us stick to things that happened in this century.


Quote:

Yeah, Uncle James was fighting in a war which resulted in the (bungled as noted above) creation of the UN. So  now you want to stick you nose in China's domestic concerns, and risk WW3. Loser.

Phukken what??? You would be speakin' Japanese right now if it were not for the likes of my great-uncle and millions of other people taking action against the Axis Powers. Funny that you speak disparagingly against the United Nations. Realistically, it is full of white hating anti-Western representatives. I would have thought that they would be your darlings.

I am not going to do anything in regards to China's domestic affairs. China would spawn into something else by next decade, of their own accord.


Quote:

Here you go, mindlessly, breezily speculating about WW3; you have no respect for life - except your own sorry a*se of course. Millions will die in WW3 (and Einstein warned the war after that would be fought with sticks and stones....).

Einstein is a moron. There is no reason that a nuclear war will wipe out humanity so much between two warring factions. If the United States launches and detonates 100 nuclear weapons into China and China launches and detonates 100 nuclear weapons into the USA, both countries would be decimated. Their economies would be in tatters (life support). Both countries will have to rely on their regional towns and cities to function as part of the rebuild.

Australia would end up screwed with our economy losing two of our biggest trading partners. But we are not going to revert to sticks and stones as our weapons. We will be heavily involved in upgrading our military in every area. And the psychology of our military personnel will take on the demeanour of Kyle Reese's and Sarah Connor's.

And given that I have saved people's lives in the past and have been recognised as having saved people from near death, I find it an insult that you would think I have no respect for life. Nuclear warfare is out of the question in my opinion. We need to avoid it. Especially if we start to deprogram the brainwashed idiots like you so that your disillusionment about the world will make you a better person. I cannot believe that you are so naive. Even a teenager would know better than you.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 12:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2024 at 4:14pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 26th, 2024 at 12:26pm: freediver wrote on Jun 26th, 2024 at 5:15am: Quote: Er... no, it was the in part command economy which enabled China to become the world's factory. It was the command economy that starved 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally. Your blind, ugly 'reward according to ability alone' ideology creates your fraudulent narrative "trying to feed them all equally" . (Marx said "from each according to abilty, to each according to need"; you of course worship the reverse). I already exposed your error some posts back,  your blind,  despicable fraudulent ideology: trying to ensure  sufficient food for all is NOT "trying to feed everyone equally" - another version of the conservative "equality of outcome" lie.    You keep recycling the same nonsense over and over again, while you - like all conservatives -   insist poverty is 'normal' and can't be eradicted. You must be hoping people just read the last post, which is why you think you can just keep recycling your despicable ideology over and over. Deplorable.  Re "command economy": in fact the dual command-market  econonmy has led to China leading the wolrd  in PVs and EVs, and also SMRs  - the latter failing in the US because private companies can't make a profit out of them, whereas China can support the development of SMRs via state subsidization. You lose.    What do you think is wrong with my characterization of the Great Chinese Famine as trying to feed them all equally? Can't you read? "I already exposed your error some posts back, ( a reflection of) your blind,  despicable fraudulent ideology: trying to ensure  sufficient food for all is NOT "trying to feed everyone equally" - another version of the conservative "equality of outcome" lie.    So you need further explanation (assuming you CAN read)? Let it sink in this time. The goal of poverty eradication is NOT the same as  the Right's strawman aka  "equality of outcome".

But they were actual communists back then, dedicated to equality of outcome. The fact that the CCP finally, after a century and after killing about 100 million of its own citizens, realises that capitalism does a better job of poverty reduction, does not change the CCP's history or fundamental culture.


Quote:

[quote]How much of China's recent increase in standard of living do you think would have been possible without all the foreign money, ideas and technology that flooded in as soon as the CCP removed it's hands from around the neck of the Chinese people?

Most of it: it was the hard work of the Chinese people governed by a single authority which increased the standard of living, after China became the world's factory.  [/quote]

You are confused. These are not mutually exclusive. The foreign investment poured in because the Chinese people were willing to work hard. Yet, they also worked hard when Mao was starving them to death in their millions.


Quote:

[quote]Do you think it is reasonable for a government to need to kill nearly 100 million of their own people over about a century in order to "learn" how to run the country? When they are surrounded by other countries showing them how to do it the easy way? How does that make China a meritocracy?

A mostly blind "freedom" ideologues'  narrative:

re "the easy way":

(google)

Since 1990, income inequality has increased in most developed countries and in some middle-income countries, including China and India. While inequality has gone up in the majority of countries over the past three decades, it has fallen in a few.[/quote]

You complain about me characterising Mao's effort at starving 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally, but in the same post conflate inequality with poverty. Remember, our welfare payments are more than double the median Chinese wage.

If you had a choice between people starving to death on a roughly equal basis under communism, or being far wealthier, but unequally so, under capitalism, which would you choose?

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2024 at 9:44am:

But they were actual communists back then, dedicated to equality of outcome.

But they aren't now: there are 800 billionaires in China created since Deng's free-market reforms in 1980, nevertheless Xi has lately woken up to the limits of "free markets" introduced by Deng, and has realized houses are for living in, not as investment vehicles in a private personal-profit-seeking  free-market. And the CCP has also cracked down on IPOs whose purpose is to create millionaires on the backs of the small investors who lose out.


Quote:

The fact that the CCP finally, after a century and after killing about 100 million of its own citizens, realises that capitalism does a better job of poverty reduction, does not change the CCP's history or fundamental culture.

Addressed and refuted above. Xi is reforming  the economy, again, now that Deng's reforms are no longer engendering common prosperity, hence  the CCP has had to bail out Evergande et al to avoid a US-style free market property crash.

Indeed, the world is now increasingly coming to understand the fraud that is promulgated by democracy; nations everywhere are bankrupt or forced to implement 'austerity' by the criminal IMF while billionaires are laughing all the way to the bank. (Apparently the world's first $trillionaire is likey to appear in a decade or so, as  feared by Oxfam).  Total economic dysfunction while a billion Aficans are living in absolute poverty, wondering why democratic elections do not increase their standard of living....even getting rid of Apartheid changed nothing for S. African blacks'  standard of living 

Again the IMF is a villain: when the Kenyan govt. tried to raise taxes to decrease the national debt as required by the IMF, naturally the poverty-level citizens rioted - revealing the economic dysfunction caused by obsolete economic othodoxy promulgated by the IMF ( a US stooge).

And the standard of living is falling in Britain, people are living in tents in California along side Zukerberg.

Democracy is a fraud


Quote:

TGD:it was the hard work of the Chinese people governed by a single authority which increased the standard of living, after China became the world's factory.  You are confused. These are not mutually exclusive.

 

Correct (for once). 

Western companies chasing cheap labour enabled faster techology transfer to occur in  China, but it was the CCP who caused it to happen (by opening up), thereby becoming the world's factory  (cf eg, India). 


Quote:

The foreign investment poured in because the Chinese people were willing to work hard. Yet, they also worked hard when Mao was starving them to death in their millions.

Your error: foreign investment started pouring in after Deng's opening up, not before.


Quote:

You complain about me characterising Mao's effort at starving 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally,

Wrong agian, I complain about you conflating 'communism" with "equality of outcome" - your definition of communism, not the CCP's, since Deng.

Your attempt to smear the present-day CCP, on the basis of your definition of "communism" and CCP policies enacted half a century ago, is illogical - a speciality of your blind "freedom values" ideology blithely content with the disintegrating, dysfunctional   democracies all around the world. (Biden argung with Trump in today's "debate" re who is the better golf player....a wonderful manifestation of the 'quality' of thought and politcal debate in 'blind leading the blind' democracies)..

Hence my yen for a consensus meritocracy, fgs...


Quote:

but in the same post conflate inequality with poverty. Remember, our welfare payments are more than double the median Chinese wage.

Your errors:

1. I don't conflate inequality with poverty,  I point to extreme inequality as a manifestation of systemic economic dysfunction (instituted by the IMF down).

Even China is hindered by the economic dysfunction engendered by the current global financial system (requiring balanced government budgets).

2. Are you dementing? Stop reposting your ignorance  which I have already exposed in previous posts. (Chinese farmers are better off than Oz dole recipients).   

Conclusion: Democracy under the aegis of the IMF is a fraud. The Brits are dismayed by what either side has to offer, while their standard of living continues to fall  - except for the City of London finacial casino operators who are laughing all the way to the bank.   

..... but can't handle Taiwan beating them in.... badminton.  ;D



Chinese state television broadcaster CCTV on Sunday pulled the plug on its Olympic coverage to avoid showing Taiwan’s badminton team winning the gold medal by defeating the top-rated Chinese team.

Taiwan won its first gold medal of the Paris Olympics when its men’s doubles team of Lee Yang and Wang Chi-lin bested China’s Liang Weikeng and Wang Chang in an upset badminton victory.



Also:
Chinese Media: Mentioning Chinese Olympians’ Failed Doping Tests Is Racist

Frank wrote on Aug 7^th, 2024 at 11:17am:

..... but can't handle Taiwan beating them in.... badminton.  ;D Chinese state television broadcaster CCTV on Sunday pulled the plug on its Olympic coverage to avoid showing Taiwan’s badminton team winning the gold medal by defeating the top-rated Chinese team. Taiwan won its first gold medal of the Paris Olympics when its men’s doubles team of Lee Yang and Wang Chi-lin bested China’s Liang Weikeng and Wang Chang in an upset badminton victory.

I agree; it would have been smarter for the CCP to claim the win - and the gold - as a win for the Chinese nation, since Taiwan is part of China.



Quote:

Also: Chinese Media: Mentioning Chinese Olympians’ Failed Doping Tests Is Racist

Oz sore losers making unsubstantiated claims about doping?