Of course not. Every government is going to look out for themselves. Following your reasoning, look at China. They have their own playbook for operating within China, and it is quite restrictive. They make it harder for foreign entities to do business within China. From a geopolitical viewpoint this makes complete sense. You don't want your rival to have a backdoor into influencing/manipulating/discovering how people…
As a Chinese, I feel sad that China succeeds in exporting its idea of restriction to the world.
No need to be. It's all good as long as the restrictions are just quid pro quo.
Of course not. Every government is going to look out for themselves. Following your reasoning, look at China. They have their own playbook for operating within China, and it is quite restrictive. They make it harder for foreign entities to do business within China. From a geopolitical viewpoint this makes complete sense. You don't want your rival to have a backdoor into influencing/manipulating/discovering how people…
>"I want USA to do whatever it needs to be the top player"
How far are you willing to go? Do you give a shit about people being killed so that your country stays rich and "on top"?
> I want USA to do whatever it needs to be the top player Are you sure? Several months ago I've woke up to learn, that my country start to kill civilians of other country with bombs, missiles and shelling, to become "top player". And, what is even worse, many of my fellow citizens support it. Now I'm trying to leave this country for some other, which don't have ambitions to be top-player but don't kill civilians and…
Youll enjoy europe then, scandinavia among others is surely on top of the us in every term apart from business revenue and the army.
And opportunities, and size of homes, and cost of living
First, this ignores that the USA benefits tremendously from trading with other countries, most of all with China. If this mindset was applied universally, the USA (and the world) would be worse off. It also ignores that treating countries as though they are enemies can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It can increase the threat rather than decrease it. Second, it's not necessarily in one's best interest to live in…
> The USA ranks 26th for median wealth Wealth is also a function of age - older people tend to have more - and that ranking is not normalized by such extraneous factors. The US is number 2 by median income, and number 1 for median disposable income, both of which are pretty important, especially to younger people that want cash flow to enjoy life.
That metric probably doesn't factor in cost of living, cost of education, cost of healthcare, etc. The US isn't particularly young. But regardless, I didn't mean that the US was not a good place to live. It does extremely well on most metrics. My point was that there are many countries, including ones that are tiny in comparison (definitely not "top dog"), that enjoy comparable standards of living. The US could retain its high standards of living without being the "top dog".
> I’m not sure you know what 0 sum is. “Zero-sum game is a mathematical representation in game theory and economic theory of a situation which involves two sides, where the result is an advantage for one side and an equivalent loss for the other” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game > Zero sum doesn’t mean you can’t exchange money for goods and services. Zero-sum means that when I win, the other party loses.…
Yes, zero sum means a gain for one is a loss for another. But you’re not gaining or losing when you buy something. The seller isn’t gaining or losing either. You’re both trading like for like. Again, zero sum does not imply like for like trades are impossible.
You are arguing purely on price but not considering other factors. To the person who bought the beer, the deemed value is probably more than they paid for it, and to the seller the beer was a liability due to having a limited shelf life and occupying shelf space. Thus there was a gain for both parties.
I don't have a horse in this race at all, but the annoying part is that the same rules don't get applied across the board. Everything they're accusing TikTok of - from data harvesting to the government having access to said data - is true for western companies as well and that should be the problem. Not the fact that the data is now in the hands of the Chinese but that the data is being collected at all provided to t…
Of course they don't get applied across the board. As much as TikTok is a US national security risk, Google/Meta massively gathering data about citizens of other countries is a US national security asset.
The problem with privacy law is that some foreign powers won't abide by the laws. It's not unlike violence- a country can try to make a global law saying "Nobody is allowed to have a military", but if they actually get rid of their military, they will just get taken over by a different country which does have a military.
I don't have a horse in this race at all, but the annoying part is that the same rules don't get applied across the board. Everything they're accusing TikTok of - from data harvesting to the government having access to said data - is true for western companies as well and that should be the problem. Not the fact that the data is now in the hands of the Chinese but that the data is being collected at all provided to t…
I don't have a horse in this race at all, but the annoying part is that the same rules don't get applied across the board. Everything they're accusing TikTok of - from data harvesting to the government having access to said data - is true for western companies as well and that should be the problem. Not the fact that the data is now in the hands of the Chinese but that the data is being collected at all provided to t…
> The problem should be that the data is collected and provided to the government whenever they want - not that it's not the Chinese government. We had this discussion after the Snowden leaks and nothing changed whatsoever. Back then it was the US government and the US gov had the chance to change the rules so this could not happen. Now they're up in arms because other governments do the exact same thing. It's really…
That's... not a great analogy. I trust my wife a lot more than I trust Mark Zuckerberg (or Xi Jinping).
> The USA ranks 26th for median wealth Wealth is also a function of age - older people tend to have more - and that ranking is not normalized by such extraneous factors. The US is number 2 by median income, and number 1 for median disposable income, both of which are pretty important, especially to younger people that want cash flow to enjoy life.
Number 1 for disposable income sounds off. Are daycare, tuitions, healthcare, public transport, rent/mortgages etc. factored in?
All these statistics suffer from the inequality in the US. I guess that if you take total disposable income the number 1 is correct. But if you go look at the reality, it is a minority that controls that total disposable income, while most of the population lives paycheck to paycheck and increasingly don't have money even to buy food.