Similar Scowl
Discord ID: 151071285907030017
692 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 2/7
| Next
and they are already surpassing the US in economic terms
although trump has made the US economy grow faster
it's not clear that this is a trend or just an isolated event
for now
you have to look at it from a larger historical lens
where was china 30 years ago compared to the US?
and where are they now?
all projections point to china surpassing the US
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/the-world-s-top-economy-the-us-vs-china-in-five-charts/ this one has nice charts
source?
the US grew almost 500% in 30 years?
GDP PPP
you also need to realize that the rural areas will be slower to catch up obviously, and china is a really big country.
Shenzhen today is NOTHING like it was 30 years ago
shenzhen today is very similar to LA in terms of wealth
30 years ago it was a poor village
do you realize this trend?
you used GNI to demonstrate the country isnt surpassing the US, when obviously the relevant indicators would have to be GDP PPP
to the conversation
but that only shows how rich individuals are getting, which is a bit misleading since coastal areas and rural areas are night and day. the point is production and economic activity
you are nitpicking wealth of citizens specifically, i already told you we're talking about economic activity
and how much the country *as a whole* is producing
not individually, if you want to compare that you should probably do city by city
@unit well does every tourist that goes to china share the same opinion of trump?
but that's irrelevant to the conversation dude
we were talking about how well the economy as a whole is doing, how much it's producing and how much revenew it's making. people in china still earn significantly less than the US on average OBVIOUSLY
~~you are arguing that chinese economic system was made to help the citizens?~~
~~just to make this clear~~
~~this *is* what you are arguing~~
?
ah fuck im blind
well yeah in this case, china is really close to surpassing the US
through this optic
yeah this was the measurement i meant
sorry if i wasn't clear
@unit so you mean like, if country A's government criticizes B's government, government B's should prohibit A's citizens from entering the country?
just to clarify
@sษชแด ษชsษดแดแดสแดสแด Obama just continued the foreign policy from previous administrations. foreign policy in the US tends to remain consistent regardless of dems or GOP in power. the opposite happens in domestic affaris
the last time the US formally declared war on a country was during ww2
because declaring war is prohibited by the UN charter. so countries just go around it and dont declare war
i never said it was ethical or morally correct
i'd agree that it is counter-productive as of this time and age
first of all, the US didnt start a war in libya or syria, the US isnt at war with syria or lybia, but has carried out operations in both countries and supplied sides in conflicts in these countries @sษชแด ษชsษดแดแดสแดสแด
it sounds like semantics but in IR it matters a lot
is it illegal to sponsor belligerants in wars abroad?
(it's not)
give me a specific example so we can actually get to the details and i can be more useful to the conversation
@sษชแด ษชsษดแดแดสแดสแด so you want to focus on libya?
we can do that
one at the time perhaps?
```In 2011 when President Obama ordered American warplanes into action over Libya, he never bothered to get congressional authorization to do so. Presidents are not forbidden to do such things, but under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution (WPR), they are required to notify Congress within 48 hours of the onset of US military involvement. They then have 60 days to get formal authorization from Congress and if they fail to do so must cease operations within 30 days.``` @sษชแด ษชsษดแดแดสแดสแด
he isnt forbidden of not asking congress
thats the important part
notifying is different from asking permission
basically the WPR says that the president has to send a letter to congress 2 days after war starts saying: "oh btw we're at war now, cya later"
```President Obama found an out in the law; namely that he can bypass the requirements of the WPR if the US is not engaged in active "hostilities". This was precisely the position taken by the White House โฆ even though at the time US planes were dropping bombs in Libya, firing missiles from off-shore and, according to some reports, coordinating with British forward air controllers on the ground. Only by the most tortured definition do such actions not qualify as hostilities. Indeed Obama's own office of legal counsel determined that US actions represented "hostilities" and required congressional authorization to continue. They were overruled by the president.``` the article says that even though that there were hostilities, clearly, they found a way of itnerpretation of the definition of "hostilities" that allowed it to be bypassed - a loophole if you will
the real question is: is there political will to actually go after the president for an alleged illegal action? at the time apparently not
the point is that the obama administration found a loophole in the definition
that allowed them to argue that it wasnt hostilities
i'd side with you, but obama's legal team found a way to go around the thing lol
anyway
shoot
whats this
i think i know about this
i think there is a similar law in the UK
that basically allows for on going judicial processes to remain secret until they are through
is there anything to debate
i imagine i'd agree with you on most stuff
i think i'm a centrist in economy lol
though i'm more inclined towards free market
there should be some regulations to protect workers
and then i think the state should have protectionist measures for essential industries in the country, like infrastructure
I mean, I'm no economist, but I think minimum salary is important, unions and other things that help the workers bargaining for good job conditions are the main things
because people are too stupid to know how to bargain for a good salary
and a good healthy nation cant have people take advantage of others in worse conditions for materialistic needs
i know what you're going to say
the ancap argument that minimum salary often creates unemployment
the point of minimum salary is to garantee that those who are working are at least earning something that can get them through the month
and these people would be the bottom of the barrel obviously
hang on
you think minimum wage is the gov just giving out a shit ton of money with no regard for averages on income and other statistics?
the minimum salary would have to be adjusted to a number that would least effect normal real wages and at the same time provide a acceptable income for low paying jobs
you gotta balance it out
well you'd manage inflation, all countries have inflation. and it's not always bad to have some or create more
sorry if i sound like a cop out but i *really* dont want to jump into this rabbit hole
there are obviously problems with regulations
they create problems too
but it's about picking the lesser of two evils
in my country if our minimum wage was removed people would be earning very little
because people dont know how to bargain
and dont know their worth on the market
if they were needed lol
you can replace the woman that is cleaning corridors at your office in no time
we're not talking about IT guys that are very valueable on the market
and can very easily know their worth
i can see you are a very liberal guy so i guess i should also point out my liberal ideas on the market
low taxation is good
creating an enviroment where capital can be invested to create jobs is ideal
692 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 2/7
| Next