Miscellaneous News

[TK3600]

Imo Americans are not really that individualistic at all. They have an aversion to "communist" stuff because they have been implanted with pavlovian triggers against certain phrases.

For example, many Americans would react with outrage if asked to give up something "for the union". But if you just asked them to give up something "for the company" they would happily do it.

Americans are very willing to tolerate personal discomfort for the greater good of the group, as long as you present the idea to them in the language they like. Just look at COVID19 as an example. It was accepted that "keeping America strong" and "the economy" was acceptable even through many people lost lives or suffered long term sickness.

Americans are basically right wing, national level collectivists. Mainland Chinese are family level collectivists or neutral individualists, looking mostly out for the "in group" rather than everyone in the whole society.

I think the true extreme individualists are only ones like HK Chinese, they literally don't care about the bigger picture at all and only about personal comfort (broadly speaking). And obviously that's not a desirable trait.

As someone who study psychology I find American society not actually individualistic. It is evident in many of their communal practice like going to church. Whereas in Asia our worship is more individualistic. It is more accurate to say American or western society values individualism, but they do not always practice what they believe.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

As someone who study psychology I find American society not actually individualistic. It is evident in many of their communal practice like going to church. Whereas in Asia our worship is more individualistic. It is more accurate to say American or western society values individualism, but they do not always practice what they believe.

It's more like individualism is used as an excuse to reduce social welfare and government accountability.

 

[james smith esq]

Imo Americans are not really that individualistic at all. They have an aversion to "communist" stuff because they have been implanted with pavlovian triggers against certain phrases.

For example, many Americans would react with outrage if asked to give up something "for the union". But if you just asked them to give up something "for the company" they would happily do it.

Americans are very willing to tolerate personal discomfort for the greater good of the group, as long as you present the idea to them in the language they like. Just look at COVID19 as an example. It was accepted that "keeping America strong" and "the economy" was acceptable even through many people lost lives or suffered long term sickness.

Americans are basically right wing, national level collectivists. Mainland Chinese are family level collectivists or neutral individualists, looking mostly out for the "in group" rather than everyone in the whole society.

I think the true extreme individualists are only ones like HK Chinese, they literally don't care about the bigger picture at all and only about personal comfort (broadly speaking). And obviously that's not a desirable trait.

Americans are extremely individualistic in their consumption patterns, only; with each person consuming as many categories of good as possible. However, what they consume is wholly driven by psychological conformity. So, even tho’ everybody has everything they want, they all want the same things. In their knowledge, beliefs, perspectives, experiences, desires, life-choices, et c., and, most importantly, in what they, independently, produce/create, Americans are as conformity-driven as any other. In fact, their extremely-individualistic consumption is an expression of this conformity.

Unfortunately, I see that this pattern is what’s most idealized by America admirers, globally, and I do see its influence in Chinese consumption patterns, as well. Although most folks, globally, are still primarily communitarian consumers, when it comes to such things as meals, cars, and homes, I do see a creeping cell-phonization of consumption patterns globally. And, remember, even telephones used to be communitarian commodities at varying levels of community.

We can look at this in two ways, at least. From one perspective, it’s good for business growth; from the other, we might question whether, or not, business growth should be the primary motivator of human activity, i. e., are we simply farm-animals for the farmer to fatten for the slaughter.

I’ve coined the term ’unitarian vs communitarian consumers“ for this dichotomy. My question is which of these actually empowers true individuals most and is better for society, as a whole.

 

[FriedButter]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Fulton County district attorney wants Trump trial to begin March 4, 2024 – one day before Super Tuesday primaries​

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has asked a judge to set a trial date of March 4, 2024, for former President Donald Trump and his 18 co-defendants – a proposal that would put the Republican presidential candidate on trial a day before he competes in the Super Tuesday primary contests.

Willis also asked to schedule arraignments for the defendants for the week of September 5, according to a court filing, and says the proposed dates “do not conflict” with Trump’s other criminal cases.

If the proposed trial date is accepted, Trump will begin his trial in the Georgia case when the Republican presidential nominating process is well underway. Several states will already have held their nominating contests, including the traditional early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Super Tuesday, when voters in more than a dozen states, including California and Texas, will go to the polls, takes place on March 5, 2024.

The filing indicates Willis is seeking to quickly initiate the process of sharing discovery with all 19 defendants and wants to keep her word to hold a trial within six months.

Willis asked the judge to give defendants until 10 days after the arraignment to opt into “reciprocal discovery.” If they opt in, all parties “shall serve discovery materials then in its possession” to opposing counsel no later than September 29.

I don’t know why they act like it’s not a political persecution and then proceed to make it as painfully obvious that it is in fact is one. You got the judge openly coming about how furious she is because Trump isn’t in jail yet. Not to mention that jurors were openly showing their bias in public interviews several months ago on the case.

 

[TK3600]

It's more like individualism is used as an excuse to reduce social welfare and government accountability.

The need for belonging is universal for humans regardless of culture. While the culture may value certain traits like individualism it does not change the human needs underneath. They either behave as communal unlike what their mouth say, the few that do not behave communal suffer from loneliness. The result health consequence from loneliness is twice as predictive of mortality than obesity, which is extremely high.

 

[james smith esq]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don’t know why they act like it’s not a political persecution and then proceed to make it as painfully obvious that it is in fact is one. You got the judge openly coming about how furious she is because Trump isn’t in jail yet. Not to mention that jurors were openly showing their bias in public interviews several months ago on the case.

And, January 6th was a “peaceful protest”, too, right?
And, let me guess, the “War of Northern Aggression ” wasn’t about negro slavery, but states’ rights, right?
Actually, the federal case should start on January 6th, not 2nd!

 

[Minm]

It seems obvious to me that China and its close partners - Russia, North Korea, Iran - are insufficient to form an alliance of equal power to the Western alliance. They simply don't own enough of the world's land, resources, and markets. The rest of the Global South are also not likely to rally behind China, but constitute third parties, where China's influence will be challenged by the Western alliance. Their best play under game theory is to side with whoever gives them the better deal for the time being; and to keep their diplomacy flexible. Counting on the Global South to take China's side is not wise.

That's why China should ensure its allies grow wealthy and gain more allies. A lot of BRI money has been spent with little to show for. There should be more investment into friendly countries and countries that might become friends. Central Asia and western Asia are the best options here, the US is not liked there and landlocked countries don't have the same options as countries like Indonesia.

 

[TK3600]

That's why China should ensure its allies grow wealthy and gain more allies. A lot of BRI money has been spent with little to show for. There should be more investment into friendly countries and countries that might become friends. Central Asia and western Asia are the best options here, the US is not liked there and landlocked countries don't have the same options as countries like Indonesia.

In terms of military Chinese partners are actually very strong. North Korea is bit of meme but they do have ICBM and nukes. Pakistan is a nuclear power too. Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal and third best conventional military. Iran is a powerhouse in middle east and is developing their own nuclear capability. That is 3 nuclear powers already besides China, and another upcoming nuclear power. For US, they have France, UK, Israel, also 3 nuclear powers. India is also a minor nuclear power, but they are not aligned to US yet.

 

[james smith esq]

That's why China should ensure its allies grow wealthy and gain more allies. A lot of BRI money has been spent with little to show for. There should be more investment into friendly countries and countries that might become friends. Central Asia and western Asia are the best options here, the US is not liked there and landlocked countries don't have the same options as countries like Indonesia.

Kazakhstan and Iran, for starters should be primary destinations for massive investment and infrastructure development. Success in Iran could be leveraged towards greater access in Iraq, eventually leading to Syria and Lebanon.
And, do not neglect North Korea; although a tricky situation, there is room for growth and development, there!

 

[Eventine]

Depends on the measurement. Raw GDP? Yes. Key industrial outputs? No. They simply pay more for same shit due to exchange rates. Chinese on average is now wealthier than average Europeans. Americans are wealthier, but only to the extent the elites are obscenely rich and the average life quality of average American are worse by multiple measures such as life expectancy and indebtedness. Big press X to doubt moment.

Industrial outputs only measure one dimension of the economy - producers. The problem with China + partners - indeed the very problem affecting it today - is demand. You can't have growth without increasing demand, which is why the present slow down in China has been difficult to solve via supply side support.

Well for one these are partners, not alliances, so they are not comparable to NATO. But if you insist to compare them the assessment is wrong. Russia is literally the largest country by far, that is a lot of land. China is also a huge country. Most of Asia is bigger than western Europe and North America by quite a bit. It is the Europeans who are low on resources. Most of NATO resources comes from new world like North America and Australia. The rest are sourced from global south like Africa, Middle East. Meanwhile China and his partners are sitting on some of the best resource rich regions. Countries like Russia, China have near monopoly on much of the minerals, and more than half of oils (Russia, Saudi Arabia). The rest of resources are in global south like Africa which China has bigger influence on.

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and even if you count Pakistan though it's an US "ally," are not collectively bigger than the EU + US + Australia + Canada + Japan + South Korea. The problem is that we live in the shadows of the Age of Colonialism, during which Europeans literally tripled or quadrupled their territory. They have control of more of the world's resources than China and its partners do, there's no question about that when you combine all the countries in the Western alliance.

That is silly. Western alliance has more population than China. I know you mean well but even you are falling into the "China is beating us only because they are bigger population" propaganda. Combined population of Japan, North America, West Europe has more people than China, that is before you start including willing colonial soldiers like Philippine, India. The fact is average Chinese is more productive than western person, despite the population disadvantage. Furthermore western TFR may be low, but the population trajectory is not going down due to much higher immigration rates.

I am not saying that China is only beating them because of population. I am saying that China's population is one of its greatest advantages. If China was the size of Japan, a head on fight vs. the Western alliance would be impossible. Japan was CRUSHED by the US, first militarily during World War 2, and then again economically during the Plaza Accords, despite having arguably superior policies, industrial processes, and a more productive population.

Today Japan is the lap dog that it is because the US has demonstrated to Japan that it can't win in any kind of fight. Weight class matters.

Back to topic of China's strength. The strength is the government. China has not always been the industrial powerhouse and well off country it is now. You paid attention to those, but missed what brought those in in first place. The superior government industrial policy is the one bringing China to a tech power and high education, as well as the Asian culture of education and hard work. The government also played a key role on where do the newly generated wealth go. Chinese government is succesful at directing new money into investment for future, as opposed to speculation. Ultimately government is central to everything you mentioned, but there is no mention of it as the key strength.

Everything I've talked about relies on government competence. After all, we're talking about policies here. I agree that the key to China's - and any country's - success is government strategy and execution.