China Successfully Launches Remote Sensing Satellite

[Jay_]

depends..... those riot are lead by poor people but imagine if commie pull them out of poverty in the next several years.... *they wont say a sh*t against the gov...

You know I aint gonna die tomorrow. Communism in China will die before me.

 

[Jay_]

The next time we visited them, we found out that they didn't finish building the road, instead, they just splitted the money among each other and kept it...

Quite interesting, but the corruption done by CPC officials is far worse than that. I hope you are not going to ask a link for that.

farmers are exactly the quality of people you want to get an opinion of govn't from. You can easily bribe them to agree with you on anything.

Whats the % of farmers and peasants in Chinese population?

 

[ChinaWall65]

So all the hyped up peasant reveloution is pure BS then? Now I see, Mao bribed the peasants to rise up.

I was responding to riots, not revolution...they are two different things. Riots are very common is every country with large populations, it is just nature. A large group of angry people means riots, even in the United States. Mao didn't bribe the peasants to rise up, Mao was a peasant who felt the need of a revolution at that time just like everyother peasants at the time. But that far far away from the case you mentioned with the farmers riot in Wanzhou.

You know I aint gonna die tomorrow. Communism in China will die before me.

Economically, China is not defined by communism anymore...but politically, China is not very likely to change away from communism.

Quite interesting, but the corruption done by CPC officials is far worse than that. I hope you are not going to ask a link for that.

Corruption is very common in China, it's in everyone's life...if you were born and raised in China, then you would know exactly what I'm talking about. It's just part of how things work in China. But then again, there also has been corruptions in the US government, and I hope you are not going to ask a link for that either.

 

[Jay_]

Corruption is very common in China, it's in everyone's life...if you were born and raised in China, then you would know exactly what I'm talking about. It's just part of how things work in China. But then again, there also has been corruptions in the US government, and I hope you are not going to ask a link for that either.

Exactly. Perhaps you would like to revise your initial statement ?

The next time we visited them, we found out that they didn't finish building the road, instead, they just splitted the money among each other and kept it...farmers are exactly the quality of people you want to get an opinion of govn't from. You can easily bribe them to agree with you on anything.

 

[Jay_]

I was responding to riots, not revolution...they are two different things. Riots are very common is every country with large populations, it is just nature. A large group of angry people means riots, even in the United States.

What lead to the riots in Wanzhou and what led to peasant revolution?

 

[ChinaWall65]

Exactly. Perhaps you would like to revise your initial statement ?

why would i do that

 

[sigatoka]

The recent farmers riot in Wanzhou just proves how much Chinese people like communism

I'm looking forward for a new democratic China, communist china will die a slow death, nevertheless it will die.

Of course the Gujarat riots are a fine example that such things dont happen in Democratic India. People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

 

[sigatoka]

Money is the priority in China and uneducated farmers are very lazy...my relatives donated money to build roads for some rural community. The next time we visited them, we found out that they didn't finish building the road, instead, they just splitted the money among each other and kept it...farmers are exactly the quality of people you want to get an opinion of govn't from. You can easily bribe them to agree with you on anything.

Thats not true, the truth why Farmers income is not rising because of the brutal growth in productivity in the sector. The dramatic increase in productivity is reducing prices in the agricultural sector such that incomes of farmers are not rising. The solution? The best solution is do nothing and let the invisible hand do its work. As incomes rise in other sectors relative to farming, people will move out of farming over time and the remaining farmers will see their incomes rise.

This may take around fifteen years.

I dont see why splitting the money instead of building the road is wrong?? The road would have been built if it was more valuable than spending the money on other things. The worst kind of donations are those with conditions attached.

 

[ChinaWall65]

Thats not true, the truth why Farmers income is not rising because of the brutal growth in productivity in the sector. The dramatic increase in productivity is reducing prices in the agricultural sector such that incomes of farmers are not rising.

..."income not rising" is still about money...

The solution? The best solution is do nothing and let the invisible hand do its work. As incomes rise in other sectors relative to farming, people will move out of farming over time and the remaining farmers will see their incomes rise. This may take around fifteen years.

true, china should allow more free market style economy

I dont see why splitting the money instead of building the road is wrong??

its morally wrong, spending the money that is suppose to be building roads is lying and cheating

The road would have been built if it was more valuable than spending the money on other things.

no, building the road takes work and you don't get any money afterward, splitting the money is the easy way...point is, some uneducated people will do almost anything to get money.

The worst kind of donations are those with conditions attached.

All donations have conditions attached...you are not donating to a college fund for students to buy crack, you donate so they can go to college.

 

[A.Rahman]

Of course the Gujarat riots are a fine example that such things dont happen in Democratic India. People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

also dont forget operation bluestar, after the assination of indra ghandi, how the mobs killed shikhs while the police watched.

how they committed government backed genocide in gujarat ? wow democracy is wonderful.

 

[sigatoka]

its morally wrong, spending the money that is suppose to be building roads is lying and cheating

no, building the road takes work and you don't get any money afterward, splitting the money is the easy way

All donations have conditions attached...you are not donating to a college fund for students to buy crack, you donate so they can go to college.

I follow a rule in my life, choose the lesser of two evils when forced. For me building the economically inefficient road is more evil than lying and cheating.

Some choices are hard some easy, whether something is hard or easy tells nothing about what is better. In this case the harder decision (building road) is not as good as splitting money.

The choice is not between good (road) or bad (private good consumption) in our case. It is between public vs private good consumption. The community for whom the road was being built has decided the Utility from private consumption exceeds Utility from Public goods consumption, the choice is efficient.

Donations are subject to some funny economics. First of all according to economics there doesnt seem to be a reason why they occur, after all why give away resources you earnt for no gain?

The donation money spent on crack instead of college is quite complex in reality in relation to efficiency becuase the Utility of the giver and receiver both have to be taken into account. However in the long run, if the receiver uses it for crack, the giver will stop giving.

 

[ChinaWall65]

I follow a rule in my life, choose the lesser of two evils when forced. For me building the economically inefficient road is more evil than lying and cheating.

Some choices are hard some easy, whether something is hard or easy tells nothing about what is better. In this case the harder decision (building road) is not as good as splitting money.

The choice is not between good (road) or bad (private good consumption) in our case. It is between public vs private good consumption. The community for whom the road was being built has decided the Utility from private consumption exceeds Utility from Public goods consumption, the choice is efficient.

Donations are subject to some funny economics. First of all according to economics there doesnt seem to be a reason why they occur, after all why give away resources you earnt for no gain?

The donation money spent on crack instead of college is quite complex in reality in relation to efficiency becuase the Utility of the giver and receiver both have to be taken into account. However in the long run, if the receiver uses it for crack, the giver will stop giving.

Building roads is far more important in the long run where as private consumption only satisfy your immediate needs in this case. Your arguement of general consensus of utility depends on who is making the decision to say that utility from private consumption exceeds utility from public development. Usually, educated people will conclude that utility from public development is greater than untility from private consumption because in the long run, better transportation system accelerates development, which creates a better quality of life. Uneducated people, on the other hand, will make the decision that utility from private consumption is greater than utility from public goods in order to satisfy their immediate needs and wants...which is my point about peasants and farmers, although they are hard working and important to China's growing economy, they are not the kind of people suited to make decisions. Unable to speculate the future is problematic in decision making which makes them unqualified to make political opinions. The only message behind these riots is they want more money. They are just hard-working people and thats all.

 

[sigatoka]

Building roads is far more important in the long run where as private consumption only satisfy your immediate needs in this case. Your arguement of general consensus of utility depends on who is making the decision to say that utility from private consumption exceeds utility from public development. Usually, educated people will conclude that utility from public development is greater than untility from private consumption because in the long run, better transportation system accelerates development, which creates a better quality of life. Uneducated people, on the other hand, will make the decision that utility from private consumption is greater than utility from public goods in order to satisfy their immediate needs and wants...which is my point about peasants and farmers, although they are hard working and important to China's growing economy, they are not the kind of people suited to make decisions.

You know in Singapore fools like you are in charge, they force people to give around 20% of their income to a single government superannuation fund which invests the money in development projects. The problem is that the returns offered are a pittance.

There is an efficient level of growth, trying to force it above the efficient level reduces happiness. Remember fundamentally economic growth is a sacrifice of current consumption. Lets take an extreme e.g. every year the govt takes away 90% of your income to invest in roads, ports so forth, are you happier with the faster economic growth? In reality such policy benefits your children and grandchildren because when u die and they come into power they will reverse your stupid decision and then enjoy the fruits of your labour because you were too stupid too.

The reason we work hard and toil is too enjoy the fruits of our labour, not to transfer it all to future generations. Economic growth which occurs when investment occurs at its natural pace, (for eg when the road gets built because the people want greater future consumption relative to current) happiness is maximsied. (Future generations will enjoy better living standards due to technological progress, for eg we consume four times more than our grandparents and a lot of it can be explained by better technology. Why give more to them in the form of forcing investment and growth above natural level??)

I take strong offence of your implication that people are poor because they are stupid, the reality of the world is that we are rich or poor because of the circumstances forced upon us over which we have little control.

China's economic success is derived from its economic decentralisation, the fact that it allows individuals to make economic decisions. If you ever do microeconomics you will understand why markets are so efficient, it is becuause there is tremendous amount of valuable information encoded in prices. This information is free to view and allows good decisions to be made by all entities in society. Even benovelant decision makers in Command economies are unable to make the best decisions due to lack of costless information.

 

[ChinaWall65]

You know in Singapore fools like you are in charge, they force people to give around 20% of their income to a single government superannuation fund which invests the money in development projects. The problem is that the returns offered are a pittance.

Donations are private transactions, how do you compare that to government taking your money. Donations, which means giving out of the free will, is very different from taking your money.

There is an efficient level of growth, trying to force it above the efficient level reduces happiness. Remember fundamentally economic growth is a sacrifice of current consumption. Lets take an extreme e.g. every year the govt takes away 90% of your income to invest in roads, ports so forth, are you happier with the faster economic growth? In reality such policy benefits your children and grandchildren

You must be very selfish then. Valuing yourself above everything you love is excatly the reason that evil still exists in today's world. And also, the arguement government taking away money comparing to my relatives giving money out of their free will, again, is invalid.

The reason we work hard and toil is too enjoy the fruits of our labour, not to transfer it all to future generations. Economic growth which occurs when investment occurs at its natural pace, (for eg when the road gets built because the people want greater future consumption relative to current) happiness is maximsied. (Future generations will enjoy better living standards due to technological progress, for eg we consume four times more than our grandparents and a lot of it can be explained by better technology. Why give more to them in the form of forcing investment and growth above natural level??)

WTF, quote from you "not to transfer it all to future generations." You are so manipulative. Where did I argue or even hint that people transfers ALL to future generations. We let go part of our incomes to give to others because we care about other people. Then you manipulated enjoyment of personal income into the farmers' case. The farmers did not earn the money that my relatives donated. Those are donations, which means the farmers recieved them for free. The farmers would have not lost a single thing if they had used the money to build the roads because the money they obtained were donations, not fruits of their work.

I take strong offence of your implication that people are poor because they are stupid

Although that sounds really really harsh and I didn't mean to offend you, but that is the truth.

the reality of the world is that we are rich or poor because of the circumstances forced upon us over which we have little control.

That is just a bullshit excuse that people who failed out of their laziness and stupidity uses instead of regretting the opportunities and time they wasted.

China's economic success is derived from its economic decentralisation, the fact that it allows individuals to make economic decisions.

Again, what does this have to do with donations?

 

[sigatoka]

You must be very selfish then.

WTF, quote from you "not to transfer it all to future generations." You are so manipulative. Where did I argue or even hint that people transfers ALL to future generations.

Although that sounds really really harsh and I didn't mean to offend you, but that is the truth.

If maximizing utility is selfish, then count me in. Isnt this the economic system followed by everyone apart from North Korea? Maybe you should migrate there and see how u like socieites that are built around not maximising Utility or happiness.

My point was, to force growth above its "natural" level is transfering income from current generation to future generations.