631–640 of 1001 posts
[dupe]
You’re presenting this analogy as if it’s describing a situation that is good rather than a four alarm fire, and you’re calling other people stupid?
[flagged]
But fake money will not save the country from ww3. A superpower needs to have an independent manufacturing base to be taken seriously, nukes deterrent is eroding.
Americans need to get over their view of “Asia” as being about making shoes. When I was working in engineering in the early aughts, we mocked the Chinese as being able only to copy American technology. Today, China is competitive with or ahead of America in key technology areas, including nuclear power, AI, EVs, and batteries. We need to anticipate a future where China is equal to America on a per capita basis, but f…
China could not only be ‘equal’ but ‘better’ than the USA - we should get used to the idea. China has an average IQ of 104 out of 1.4 billion people, while the USA has an IQ of 97. In purely statistical terms, this means that the USA has around 700,000 people with an IQ >= 140. China has 11,480,000 people with this IQ. This human capital will make the difference.
[dupe]
It’s debunked. Further he would be an incredible case study given his stature and appearance. For calling MAGA people dummies, it appears you can’t even read.
Americans need to get over their view of “Asia” as being about making shoes. When I was working in engineering in the early aughts, we mocked the Chinese as being able only to copy American technology. Today, China is competitive with or ahead of America in key technology areas, including nuclear power, AI, EVs, and batteries. We need to anticipate a future where China is equal to America on a per capita basis, but f…
> What will be America’s competitive edge in that scenario? I'm sure that the US still has many edges over China in high-end technology. I remember I read a research article back in 2012/2013 which listed all fields that China were lagging behind, including pharma, computer chips and some other stuffs. It's a fairly long list. I'm sure China managed to catch up in some of the fields but I doubt all of them.
https://www.aspi.org.au/report/aspis-two-decade-critical-tec...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not necessarily a good thing. Do the New Americans want the same things as the pre-existing ones? Are they as capable? Not just "in a few generations" but here and now? Are they even likely to be as capable "in a few generations"? If the statistics aren't very wrong, it doesn't seem like a solution.
Indian Americans make the most money in America, I’m sure immigrants can be capable
[dupe]
XXY was not on his card. It was YXX. Some idiot on a rumor mill website speculated it was due to this that he must have the disease. It’s debunked. Further he would be an incredible case study given his stature and appearance. For calling MAGA people dummies, it appears you can’t even read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. And the more of that that happens, the better for the economy overall. The less of that that happens - implying more of it ends up in JKR's proverbial dragon hoard, not doing much good beyond being an impressive pile of wealth for the dragon to sleep on top of - the less good for the economy overall.
I don’t think your comment is accurate. When rich people get large amounts of money they don’t hoard it like they did in Roman times. That money either goes into the stock market or to a bank. If it’s in the stock market that money is being used in investments that further economic growth. The portion of the leftover money that’s in the bank is then lent out by the bank to others in the forms of loans and so on for p…
In other words, they're effectively rent-seeking dollars. The whole hope of investment is that you get more money without doing any labor yourself.
And if you invest and they're lost? Well, now it's not even rent-seeking. It's just burning money.
This isn't to say that there's no benefit from that money being available. The issue is that the real value that investment creates isn't really the money going back to the investor. It's the value of the labor and products generated by whatever the money fronted costs for. The actual value is still generated by the labor. The investor does help start the ball rolling, but is still a leech.
Once we get to shareholders, things don't really improve. Shareholders are also only interested in dividends. They want dividends at the cost of the company. At the cost of the product. At the cost of the customer. There's no responsibility to society or to the customer in the face of a shareholder.
Shareholders are like employees that don't do any work but still want a paycheck. "Oh, but they're owners," is kind of a poor excuse when these owners do no work. Stock is like buying a box of Crackerjack and letting your brother take the whistle and sticker.
> Also, as for JK Rowling specifically, she had donated a significant amount of her wealth to charity.
Which she does because donations offset the taxes she owes. She's no Dolly Parton.
[flagged]
What happens when the country that makes everything else realizes they can also make up fake money just as easily as anyone else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need to anticipate a future where China is equal to America on a per capita basis, but four times bigger. Is it even possible in terms of resources? there are limits to growth and it may not be feasible for 1.5 billions people to consume and pollute as much as an average American. Also are the US willing to lose their supremacy peacefully?
It seems apparent that the answer is yes though. The US likes the idea of wars more then fighting them: the guy who talks about the greatest military on the planet is also not subject to the draft and never tried to join. In so much as generalizing a nation can still leave large exceptions, wars of conquest are useless to America: it hates running occupations, and it's own citizens are not going to move abroad in suf…
Moving against EU would not get them anything and the same bit as regarding China applies.
Truth is, war is an expense. You need to count on a serious long term benefit to wage it.