Miscellaneous News

Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
White Americans are projected to be minorities by 2050, eclipsed by Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians. That is because Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians reproduce much quicker than White Americans which have Han Chinese-levels of fertility rate. This begs the question: Will minorities support Old White Fart's fantasy of global hegemony and imperialistic grandeur, or will US turn inwards to support more social welfare for the have-nots vs. the haves. I suspect it is more of the latter than the former.
 
F

FangYuan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Petrolicious88 said:
Somehow the recommendation of attracting global talent can benefit China gets interpreted as “China can’t innovate due to lack of freedom” lol.
Click to expand...

Global talent. It is a too wide and loose definition. It's easily distorted.

Example: In construction engineering. China is the most built country in the world, China has countless skilled workers, experienced engineers, many excellent students, with many universities with the world's leading training programs.

1. It creates a problem. Excellent students, experienced engineers, foreign skilled workers ... do not benefit China. In many cases, the so-called outstanding and experiences of foreigners are often backward and do not meet China's standards.
- It's like excellent students in computer science at an African university will be considered a global talent. He can work well in native nation, in regional countries, and most countries around the world. But it may not be effective if working in countries like US or China. I'm not sure he can apply for a large corporation like Google, Microsoft, Tencent, Alibaba ..
-We can lower the standards down, but China and the US do not lack normal employees.

2. Just assume they are capable, but why China must accept them. Each of them in China, means a student, engineer, indigenous workers without jobs.
Highly skilled workers -> China has a lot -> no need
Experienced engineers -> China has a lot -> no need

3. If they are a certain genius, is it really China indispensable them and must invite them at all prices? Don't forget what I said before:
No one is irreplaceable.
Nothing is irreplaceable.

EG- Look at the IT field
-United States has Larry Page and Sergey Brin, China has Yanhong Li
- United States has Bezos, China has Jack Ma

The same thing also expanded many other areas.
 
P

PeoplesPoster

Junior Member
FangYuan said:
Global talent. It is a too wide and loose definition. It's easily distorted.

Example: In construction engineering. China is the most built country in the world, China has countless skilled workers, experienced engineers, many excellent students, with many universities with the world's leading training programs.

1. It creates a problem. Excellent students, experienced engineers, foreign skilled workers ... do not benefit China. In many cases, the so-called outstanding and experiences of foreigners are often backward and do not meet China's standards.
- It's like excellent students in computer science at an African university will be considered a global talent. He can work well in native nation, in regional countries, and most countries around the world. But it may not be effective if working in countries like US or China. I'm not sure he can apply for a large corporation like Google, Microsoft, Tencent, Alibaba ..
-We can lower the standards down, but China and the US do not lack normal employees.

2. Just assume they are capable, but why China must accept them. Each of them in China, means a student, engineer, indigenous workers without jobs.
Highly skilled workers -> China has a lot -> no need
Experienced engineers -> China has a lot -> no need

3. Final. If they are a certain genius, is it really China indispensable them and must invite them at all prices? Don't forget what I said before:
No one is irreplaceable.
Nothing is irreplaceable.

Look at the IT field
United States has Larry Page and Sergey Brin, China has Yanhong Li
United States has Bezos, China has Jack Ma

The same thing also expanded many other areas.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's what the Ming and Qing believed when they shut China off from the rest of the world. We are the best and don't need input from outside of China.
 
F

FangYuan

Junior Member
Registered Member
PeoplesPoster said:
I'm sure that's what the Ming and Qing believed when they shut China off from the rest of the world. We are the best and don't need input from outside of China.
Click to expand...

I have never said China doesn't need foreign talent. This is my former comment.

FangYuan said:
China needs talent from abroad. But it should only be limited in some special cases and need supervision. The statements - foreigners are indispensable, China needs to attract talents around the world as an exaggeration and insult against China.
Click to expand...
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
PeoplesPoster said:
I'm sure that's what the Ming and Qing believed when they shut China off from the rest of the world. We are the best and don't need input from outside of China.
Click to expand...
Ming and Qing didn't have second by second satellite intelligence, internet connection and millions of travelers reporting back between London and Beijing.

You serious, comparing medieval and early industrial times to now? Hey, Mongolian horse cavalry also used to be #1 and conquered both China and Russia. Too far? Russian Navy destroyed Turkish one with 1:30 losses in the 1800s, still in industrial artillery/steam engine age too. Mongolia superpower? Russian conquest of Anatolian imminent?
 
daifo

daifo

Captain
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
White Americans are projected to be minorities by 2050, eclipsed by Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians. That is because Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians reproduce much quicker than White Americans which have Han Chinese-levels of fertility rate. This begs the question: Will minorities support Old White Fart's fantasy of global hegemony and imperialistic grandeur, or will US turn inwards to support more social welfare for the have-nots vs. the haves. I suspect it is more of the latter than the former.
Click to expand...
Trump was the product of the increasing number of "minority" vs whites in the US. It will likely be some chaos between now and then.

Asians are really the minority and they have their own disagreements from their ethnic homeland (ie viet vs chinese vs hk vs taiwan vs koreans etc) so they will have the biggest disadvantage.
 
Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
PeoplesPoster said:
I'm sure that's what the Ming and Qing believed when they shut China off from the rest of the world. We are the best and don't need input from outside of China.
Click to expand...
Lol this comment belies the fundamental difference between the arrogant attitude of then Qing Dynasty to what I and others are arguing for China not to do. What was denied or not welcomed during the Qing Dynasty was the exchange of "SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE" blindly and arrogantly assuming that there's nothing the west (represented by Britain) can offer the Emperor. We are not advocating to shut off the exchange of ideas period. As I have explicitly said on my earlier post was "China must learn/adopt that works from any western sources discard things that don't apply or can't work in China."

If you're pro-immigration because you assumed that it'll be a net positive to the country, I respectfully disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top