Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Wow, I thought it was only my family does that. My parents and grand parents does that too. It was drumed into me at the tender young age not to waste things. Appreciate how hard people grow, make all the things we enjoyed. (And we didn't have much, having been from a poorer background).
But we are now appreciating more. Whereas my children and my students and kids in general are so wasteful in today's society. I feel they don't have appreciation of anything.
The food and drinks they waste. We have meals and often food and drinks would be left on the table.
Items that's broken or cloths that's torn, but can be repaired gets thrown out. The other day, my shoes needed re-soled. And I was looking for a cobbler as the one I normally used has retired. My son didn't even know what a clobber is! He said just get a new pair! Gee.
To be fair, itbonly two years out of date. But that wasn't my point. My point was how much has changed in 40 years!
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
This is what I hate about Asians in general because they're concerned with a whacky sense of image. I was at a steakhouse restaurant once with friends. One of them brought along his Vietnamese wife and her brother and mother who were in town. When we had our two pound steaks we fully knew there was going to be leftovers to take home. I was told later that apparently we shamed the mother by taking home leftovers because to her only poor people take leftovers home. Well guess what? She's poor. She's having an affair with a man who pays her rent and is her sugar daddy and her brother was later arrested for bank robbery in Los Angeles and she was concerned because she might comes across as poor because of the American tradition of taking home leftovers? Other Asians I come across are so concerned over their self image that they're literally paranoid about what others think of them. Sometimes I'll tell them how about not doing what makes you think you have a bad image to others and people won't think that? That's literally the case where they literally are their image to others but because they're spiteful they think they can demand others not see them in that way. It's not like their image is false. And it's not surprising these are the Asians that are more likely to seek Western acceptance too.
Had Europe and US been black, people would be black worshipping right now.
The only thing that can fix the Asian image is a strong China.
Sadly, most of Asia is trying to help whites drag down China.
I think majority of Chinese born before 1990s had more or less similar experiences. It is a testament that our parents and grand parents had to go through the hardships in the 50s 60s and 70s. Food rarely had a surplus. Personally what stucked to me was when my grandpa said when I was 10 years old, that one time there was nothing to eat, they took out the leather in the shoes and boiled it.
Not trying to be confrontational but, China hasn't got to"fix" an asian image. Who does China / chinese need to prove to ? There's nothing to prove. The people who are so ignorant so as to come to the conclusion/belief that there exists some inherent drawbacks with Asians ( ethnically as well as culturally) are the types who will feign ignorance even if they are proven otherwise.
You can't wake up someone who feigns sleep.
However...
I wish Koreans, Japanese, people of Taiwan and China formed a bond as strong as the 5 eyes Anglican nations.
I really think that within 2050 there'll be big changes in North Korea ( where a female leader will take charge and change course like Deng Xiaoping) , A south Korea which decides to form a One country / Two systems type arrangement with North Korea and a Japan that is nationalistic/ conservative yet not fostering enmity with Koreans or China.
think of it as progress. When was the last time your heard an Anglo-Saxxon person complained about the lack of food?
Why China Cannot Win a Trade War Against the USA
Worth reading -- not 100% accurate, but has many critical insights.
"The essential difference between Chinese capital and that of the US or other rich countries can be characterised as that between non-monopoly and monopoly capital. As seen above, the profitability of companies such as ZTE and Huawei is mediated by their degree of technological capacity. Before looking at how the concept of monopoly versus non-monopoly applies to the international division of labour (below) it is useful to look at how it corresponds to both the profitability of First and Third World corporations and to the income in First and Third World societies.
The characteristic feature of monopoly capital – which is based principally in the rich countries – is higher rates of profit. Non-monopoly, Third World corporations, even very large ones, tend to have far lower rates of profit. These high and low profit rates of the largest corporations also correspond to high and low national per capita income levels in the countries where these companies originate and are based.
The reality of Chinese giant companies – and those of other Third World countries – is that, overwhelmingly, these are domestic monopolies with few if any international operations. While the sheer size of China’s economy means it can sustain a high number of very large companies, the degree of their profitability (at least on average) is mediated by the weak competitive position of Chinese capital within the international division of labour.
What could conceivably happen is that more areas of the labour process that are presently dominated by the imperialist societies and hence subject to monopoly pricing, could be wrested from them and become the domain of Third World production – the same thing that has already happened, for example, in low grade steel production and other industrial processes. The same may be true several years from now for the production of basic automobiles. If the proportion of necessary world labour coming under the control of non-monopoly capitalists increases, or the degree of imperialist technical superiority in high-end labour is reduced (and thereby the degree of imperialist monopoly in these is reduced), then the gap between Third World and First World income could conceivably narrow relatively – even as the overall polarisation remains robust. However, a narrowing gap between the two camps is the opposite result to the overall outcome of neoliberal period (1980–2015) and far from inevitable.
The gap cannot close entirely because it manifests the basic structure of the world market – the development of both monopoly and non-monopoly capital. The social and market polarisation between monopoly and non-monopoly capital, its reflection in the technical polarisation of labour, is the reason income inequalities manifest not as random variations, or on a spectrum, but mostly as two principal poles – rich and poor capitals, rich and poor states, rich and poor societies.
There is no ladder from ordinary to advanced labour accessible to Third World societies – except with the cooperation of imperialist core states. Every Third World society is continuously pulled back into the mundane routine of ordinary labour for the simple reason that this is where their capitalists can make money. There has been no change in that basic social structure of imperialism over the last several decades. Only the technical composition of what constitutes high and low-end labour has evolved in tandem with the general development of the human labour process itself."
Worth reading -- not 100% accurate, but has many critical insights.
"The essential difference between Chinese capital and that of the US or other rich countries can be characterised as that between non-monopoly and monopoly capital. As seen above, the profitability of companies such as ZTE and Huawei is mediated by their degree of technological capacity. Before looking at how the concept of monopoly versus non-monopoly applies to the international division of labour (below) it is useful to look at how it corresponds to both the profitability of First and Third World corporations and to the income in First and Third World societies.
The characteristic feature of monopoly capital – which is based principally in the rich countries – is higher rates of profit. Non-monopoly, Third World corporations, even very large ones, tend to have far lower rates of profit. These high and low profit rates of the largest corporations also correspond to high and low national per capita income levels in the countries where these companies originate and are based.
The reality of Chinese giant companies – and those of other Third World countries – is that, overwhelmingly, these are domestic monopolies with few if any international operations. While the sheer size of China’s economy means it can sustain a high number of very large companies, the degree of their profitability (at least on average) is mediated by the weak competitive position of Chinese capital within the international division of labour.
What could conceivably happen is that more areas of the labour process that are presently dominated by the imperialist societies and hence subject to monopoly pricing, could be wrested from them and become the domain of Third World production – the same thing that has already happened, for example, in low grade steel production and other industrial processes. The same may be true several years from now for the production of basic automobiles. If the proportion of necessary world labour coming under the control of non-monopoly capitalists increases, or the degree of imperialist technical superiority in high-end labour is reduced (and thereby the degree of imperialist monopoly in these is reduced), then the gap between Third World and First World income could conceivably narrow relatively – even as the overall polarisation remains robust. However, a narrowing gap between the two camps is the opposite result to the overall outcome of neoliberal period (1980–2015) and far from inevitable.
The gap cannot close entirely because it manifests the basic structure of the world market – the development of both monopoly and non-monopoly capital. The social and market polarisation between monopoly and non-monopoly capital, its reflection in the technical polarisation of labour, is the reason income inequalities manifest not as random variations, or on a spectrum, but mostly as two principal poles – rich and poor capitals, rich and poor states, rich and poor societies.
There is no ladder from ordinary to advanced labour accessible to Third World societies – except with the cooperation of imperialist core states. Every Third World society is continuously pulled back into the mundane routine of ordinary labour for the simple reason that this is where their capitalists can make money. There has been no change in that basic social structure of imperialism over the last several decades. Only the technical composition of what constitutes high and low-end labour has evolved in tandem with the general development of the human labour process itself."