China's Green Leap Forward
YOUR_DEAD @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:20 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Do you deny that the EPA and the US eq. are better than anything that China, India and Pakistan has?
Of coarse I don't, do you agree it is unreasonable to expect a developing country to progress parallel to a rich developed one?
ridenrain @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:29 pm
Why do you deny a developing country not learn from the mistakes of the past?
China is developing by leaps and bounds so why do you excuse them from building a dirty coal burning electrcal plant every week or so? They have no shame in stealing train, toy, computer technology so why can't they demand their plants use scrubbers on their smoke stacks.
I`ll tell you why. Because that gets in the way of proffits rfor the party.
They`d happily poison theor workers because the people `that matter`live somewhere else.
YOUR_DEAD @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:46 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Why do you deny a developing country not learn from the mistakes of the past?
China is developing by leaps and bounds so why do you excuse them from building a dirty coal burning electrcal plant every week or so? They have no shame in stealing train, toy, computer technology so why can't they demand their plants use scrubbers on their smoke stacks.
I`ll tell you why. Because that gets in the way of proffits rfor the party.
They`d happily poison theor workers because the people `that matter`live somewhere else.
China is developing by leaps and bounds so why do you excuse them from building a dirty coal burning electrcal plant every week or so? They have no shame in stealing train, toy, computer technology so why can't they demand their plants use scrubbers on their smoke stacks.
I`ll tell you why. Because that gets in the way of proffits rfor the party.
They`d happily poison theor workers because the people `that matter`live somewhere else.
They have brought more people out of poverty than any other country in history. We can't even agree on what caps to put on emissions and other environmental matters, yet you expect a poor country like China or India to have their shit together?
I got an idea, how about we set the standard then if they don't follow within 10 or 20 years then we can scapegoat them, k?
romanP @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:57 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Why do you deny a developing country not learn from the mistakes of the past?
China is developing by leaps and bounds so why do you excuse them from building a dirty coal burning electrcal plant every week or so? They have no shame in stealing train, toy, computer technology so why can't they demand their plants use scrubbers on their smoke stacks.
I`ll tell you why. Because that gets in the way of proffits rfor the party.
They`d happily poison theor workers because the people `that matter`live somewhere else.
China is developing by leaps and bounds so why do you excuse them from building a dirty coal burning electrcal plant every week or so? They have no shame in stealing train, toy, computer technology so why can't they demand their plants use scrubbers on their smoke stacks.
I`ll tell you why. Because that gets in the way of proffits rfor the party.
They`d happily poison theor workers because the people `that matter`live somewhere else.
You're thinking far too modern and far too western. The Chinese Communist Party is so paranoid that they will imprison people simply for belonging to a group that is larger than their party. It's more likely that anything in China that isn't up to western snuff is simply dismissed with propaganda rather than admit a shortcoming. It's more likely that a lot of money is being used to broadcast and control that propaganda, which could be used instead for making better standards.
ridenrain @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:08 pm
Bullshit. If the bet was on who brought most people out of poverty than my money has to be on Brittan. Their empire inroduced standardized schooling from Bangladesh to Brittany and introduced the rule of law through the empire.
You might say that the Romans pushed a frontier of regulated humanity before that but it's splitting hairs.
China is demanding to be taken as a 21 century power now yet they demand that they be exempt from the rules of Kyoto because of their poor. Who's to blame for their poor? I know Canada has been helpig their poor to the tune of $60 million a year since Trudeau, and who is it that has the larger economy again?
China also uses their poor as a buffer in their Kyoto designation by demanding that their billions of pesants rank the same as you or I. This argument falls apart because they do not have the same standard of living as we WORKED FOR. They cannot divide per-capita numbers when they are compairing Chinese pesants and Western middle class people.
I would trade with other provinces and other states because we share the same basic human values and I value my workers as much as that other guy might. That falls apart when we trade with Aparthide South Africa as it does wit China who I've shown, has no reguard for their enviroment or their people.
YOUR_DEAD @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:13 pm
$1:
Since 1978, China's market-based economic reforms have helped lift over 400 million Chinese out of poverty, bringing down the poverty rate from 53% of population in 1981 to 8% by 2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China
ridenrain @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:15 pm
romanP romanP:
ridenrain ridenrain:
Why do you deny a developing country not learn from the mistakes of the past?
China is developing by leaps and bounds so why do you excuse them from building a dirty coal burning electrcal plant every week or so? They have no shame in stealing train, toy, computer technology so why can't they demand their plants use scrubbers on their smoke stacks.
I`ll tell you why. Because that gets in the way of proffits rfor the party.
They`d happily poison theor workers because the people `that matter`live somewhere else.
China is developing by leaps and bounds so why do you excuse them from building a dirty coal burning electrcal plant every week or so? They have no shame in stealing train, toy, computer technology so why can't they demand their plants use scrubbers on their smoke stacks.
I`ll tell you why. Because that gets in the way of proffits rfor the party.
They`d happily poison theor workers because the people `that matter`live somewhere else.
You're thinking far too modern and far too western. The Chinese Communist Party is so paranoid that they will imprison people simply for belonging to a group that is larger than their party. It's more likely that anything in China that isn't up to western snuff is simply dismissed with propaganda rather than admit a shortcoming. It's more likely that a lot of money is being used to broadcast and control that propaganda, which could be used instead for making better standards.
The party is paranoid and any group that is popular is ruthlessly crushed.
I'd agree with that and I'd use the "harvesting" of organs from the religions or political prisoners as proof. That's anindustry that has outstripped it's resources so they must keep finding new doners.
ridenrain @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:19 pm
YOUR_DEAD YOUR_DEAD:
$1:
Since 1978, China's market-based economic reforms have helped lift over 400 million Chinese out of poverty, bringing down the poverty rate from 53% of population in 1981 to 8% by 2001
China Wiki
says the comminist party of China.
Good news also.. the Chocolate ration went up from 4 to 3.
Double plus good.
maybe they could find the 15 missing Tibetan monks who sort of went missing during this little disturbance?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 00200.html
bootlegga @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:47 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Bullshit. If the bet was on who brought most people out of poverty than my money has to be on Brittan. Their empire inroduced standardized schooling from Bangladesh to Brittany and introduced the rule of law through the empire.
You might say that the Romans pushed a frontier of regulated humanity before that but it's splitting hairs.
China is demanding to be taken as a 21 century power now yet they demand that they be exempt from the rules of Kyoto because of their poor. Who's to blame for their poor? I know Canada has been helpig their poor to the tune of $60 million a year since Trudeau, and who is it that has the larger economy again?
China also uses their poor as a buffer in their Kyoto designation by demanding that their billions of pesants rank the same as you or I. This argument falls apart because they do not have the same standard of living as we WORKED FOR. They cannot divide per-capita numbers when they are compairing Chinese pesants and Western middle class people.
I would trade with other provinces and other states because we share the same basic human values and I value my workers as much as that other guy might. That falls apart when we trade with Aparthide South Africa as it does wit China who I've shown, has no reguard for their enviroment or their people.
You might say that the Romans pushed a frontier of regulated humanity before that but it's splitting hairs.
China is demanding to be taken as a 21 century power now yet they demand that they be exempt from the rules of Kyoto because of their poor. Who's to blame for their poor? I know Canada has been helpig their poor to the tune of $60 million a year since Trudeau, and who is it that has the larger economy again?
China also uses their poor as a buffer in their Kyoto designation by demanding that their billions of pesants rank the same as you or I. This argument falls apart because they do not have the same standard of living as we WORKED FOR. They cannot divide per-capita numbers when they are compairing Chinese pesants and Western middle class people.
I would trade with other provinces and other states because we share the same basic human values and I value my workers as much as that other guy might. That falls apart when we trade with Aparthide South Africa as it does wit China who I've shown, has no reguard for their enviroment or their people.
Billions of peasants?
I think you have your "facts" wrong again. Last time I checked there were roughly 1.4 billion Chinese, not billions as you claim.
As for the British doing so much good, I suggest you look at a map of Africa, most of which was owned by them until after WW2. The British (and Europeans) who arbitrarily carved up Africa without any regard for tribal groups did a lot more harm than good. When the Brits then dumped the Commonwealth as trading partners, things went from bad to worse. Britain's rule of law/standardized schooling were really only successful in the dominions and perhaps India. Most of the other colonies have reverted to banana republic dictatorships and were financed by the US/UK during the Cold War. Now that that's over, they don't get much of anything from anyone, except scorn. Trade with Nigeria? But that's where all the internet scammers are! Perhaps if the West traded with Africa as 'fairly' as they trade with each other it wouldn't be in the desperate straits it is in now.
YOUR_DEAD @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:31 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
YOUR_DEAD YOUR_DEAD:
$1:
Since 1978, China's market-based economic reforms have helped lift over 400 million Chinese out of poverty, bringing down the poverty rate from 53% of population in 1981 to 8% by 2001
China Wiki
says the comminist party of China.
Good news also.. the Chocolate ration went up from 4 to 3.
Double plus good.
No, according to the World Bank.
Do you always counter facts with vague unproven statements that do nothing to back up your claims?
$1:
maybe they could find the 15 missing Tibetan monks who sort of went missing during this little disturbance?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 00200.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 00200.html
Ahh, so when your false arguments fail, you resort to changing the subject, I get it...
commanderkai @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:22 pm
YOUR_DEAD YOUR_DEAD:
ridenrain ridenrain:
YOUR_DEAD YOUR_DEAD:
$1:
Since 1978, China's market-based economic reforms have helped lift over 400 million Chinese out of poverty, bringing down the poverty rate from 53% of population in 1981 to 8% by 2001
China Wiki
says the comminist party of China.
Good news also.. the Chocolate ration went up from 4 to 3.
Double plus good.
No, according to the World Bank.
Do you always counter facts with vague unproven statements that do nothing to back up your claims?
Actually its according to the CIA World Factbook
$1:
Today, only 10 percent of the Chinese population is below the poverty line. 90.9% of the population is relatively literate,[67] compared to 20% in 1950.
Oh guess what? I bet both of those numbers are skewed too, considering the Chinese government is full of shit, and that the CIA doesn't really give two shits about poverty levels in China
If you're gonna quote a World Bank statistic, then get a World Bank statistic, and not just Wiki and make yourself look foolish
YOUR_DEAD @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:31 pm
commanderkai commanderkai:
YOUR_DEAD YOUR_DEAD:
ridenrain ridenrain:
YOUR_DEAD YOUR_DEAD:
$1:
Since 1978, China's market-based economic reforms have helped lift over 400 million Chinese out of poverty, bringing down the poverty rate from 53% of population in 1981 to 8% by 2001
China Wiki
says the comminist party of China.
Good news also.. the Chocolate ration went up from 4 to 3.
Double plus good.
No, according to the World Bank.
Do you always counter facts with vague unproven statements that do nothing to back up your claims?
Actually its according to the CIA World Factbook
$1:
Today, only 10 percent of the Chinese population is below the poverty line. 90.9% of the population is relatively literate,[67] compared to 20% in 1950.
Oh guess what? I bet both of those numbers are skewed too, considering the Chinese government is full of shit, and that the CIA doesn't really give two shits about poverty levels in China
If you're gonna quote a World Bank statistic, then get a World Bank statistic, and not just Wiki and make yourself look foolish
The foolish person here is one who cannot follow a footnote. If there is a little number after a sentence it refers to a footnote, if you look at the corresponding number at the bottom of the page, it will refer you to the source, in this case that being one from the World Bank...
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERN ... 82,00.html
$1:
Between 1981 and 2001, the proportion of population living in poverty in China fell from 53 percent to just eight percent.
Who looks foolish?
commanderkai @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:39 pm
YOUR_DEAD YOUR_DEAD:
The foolish person here is one who cannot follow a footnote. If there is a little number after a sentence it refers to a footnote, if you look at the corresponding number at the bottom of the page, it will refer you to the source, in this case that being one from the World Bank...
http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERN ... 82,00.html
$1:
Between 1981 and 2001, the proportion of population living in poverty in China fell from 53 percent to just eight percent.
Who looks foolish?
Umm...you still do, since I went to your original link, and found what that article stated. That footnote...guess what? Was to the FREAKING CIA WORLD FACTBOOK. Not the World Bank. You still fail and you just failed further by trying to prove me wrong by getting a quote that wasn't linked to your original site. But anybody can quote Wiki and just change stuff right?
So who's right? The CIA or the World Bank?
Edit: I adding original since I honestly don't care about the new one. But from your original link provided I have a contradictory "fact" that rivals yours
ridenrain @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:43 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
ridenrain ridenrain:
Bullshit. If the bet was on who brought most people out of poverty than my money has to be on Brittan. Their empire inroduced standardized schooling from Bangladesh to Brittany and introduced the rule of law through the empire.
You might say that the Romans pushed a frontier of regulated humanity before that but it's splitting hairs.
China is demanding to be taken as a 21 century power now yet they demand that they be exempt from the rules of Kyoto because of their poor. Who's to blame for their poor? I know Canada has been helpig their poor to the tune of $60 million a year since Trudeau, and who is it that has the larger economy again?
China also uses their poor as a buffer in their Kyoto designation by demanding that their billions of pesants rank the same as you or I. This argument falls apart because they do not have the same standard of living as we WORKED FOR. They cannot divide per-capita numbers when they are compairing Chinese pesants and Western middle class people.
I would trade with other provinces and other states because we share the same basic human values and I value my workers as much as that other guy might. That falls apart when we trade with Aparthide South Africa as it does wit China who I've shown, has no reguard for their enviroment or their people.
You might say that the Romans pushed a frontier of regulated humanity before that but it's splitting hairs.
China is demanding to be taken as a 21 century power now yet they demand that they be exempt from the rules of Kyoto because of their poor. Who's to blame for their poor? I know Canada has been helpig their poor to the tune of $60 million a year since Trudeau, and who is it that has the larger economy again?
China also uses their poor as a buffer in their Kyoto designation by demanding that their billions of pesants rank the same as you or I. This argument falls apart because they do not have the same standard of living as we WORKED FOR. They cannot divide per-capita numbers when they are compairing Chinese pesants and Western middle class people.
I would trade with other provinces and other states because we share the same basic human values and I value my workers as much as that other guy might. That falls apart when we trade with Aparthide South Africa as it does wit China who I've shown, has no reguard for their enviroment or their people.
Billions of peasants?
I think you have your "facts" wrong again. Last time I checked there were roughly 1.4
My point was that all measurements done with China are per person and it's an apples and spark plug type of comparison.
As you say, China's population is now 1,321,851,888 and they estimate that their middle class is approximately 19%, or 251,151,858 people. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that they are the equivilent to the US middle class. The US population is 303,715,881, but because the US population is declining and the Chinese population is rising, let's call them equal.
Then or every one Chinese middle class, there are still a million pesants to dilute the numbers.
Don't like that? Even if every single American polluted 4 times more than every single Chinese, there would still be 106,988,364 Chinese to skew the numbers.
The bottom line is it does not matter to the climate if there are one billion of one and a million of the other because it's only the net results that matter. The US and Canada have done a great job cleaning up their countries and China has shown no appreciable effort in that direction.
On further investgation, I'd say that 19% is rubbish. I got that number from a Chinese site through a quick google search. A little farther down is this link from an Austrailian observer who makes the point taht the term "middle class" dosen't come close.
$1:
Many of these new entrepreneurs have come from the ranks of the professional and managerial middle class. Others, more truly independent, are required to co-operate with the party-state "if they desire to maintain a growth trajectory".
This may mean they are expected to take up a local leadership position, perhaps to surrender some equity to a government body. This is part of what Goodman sees as "a growing imperative for successful business people to join the party".
A common generational pattern is that leading cadres are recruited from the peasantry on intellectual merit, then as they retire their children become business people, "building on the local relationships and networks of influence that their parents have developed". So in China, "ownership, management and control are intertwined in ways that cut across previous analyses of middle (or indeed any other) class behaviour".
And promoting the new entrepreneurs and the new rich as "the new middle classes" fits well the ideological constraint of today's rulers against celebrating conspicuous wealth. All China's classes are increasingly portrayed as middle. It's just that some are decidedly more middle than others.
This may mean they are expected to take up a local leadership position, perhaps to surrender some equity to a government body. This is part of what Goodman sees as "a growing imperative for successful business people to join the party".
A common generational pattern is that leading cadres are recruited from the peasantry on intellectual merit, then as they retire their children become business people, "building on the local relationships and networks of influence that their parents have developed". So in China, "ownership, management and control are intertwined in ways that cut across previous analyses of middle (or indeed any other) class behaviour".
And promoting the new entrepreneurs and the new rich as "the new middle classes" fits well the ideological constraint of today's rulers against celebrating conspicuous wealth. All China's classes are increasingly portrayed as middle. It's just that some are decidedly more middle than others.
ridenrain @ Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:46 pm
[quote="YOUR_DEAD] Ahh, so when your false arguments fail, you resort to changing the subject, I get it...[/quote]
I do when you yank something that has as much credability as that fluffy piece of nonsense that started this thread.