I think it has been happening here since the federal reserve was created. Now we are experiencing hyperinflation and these asshles are destroying supply lines while an NPC population complies and spreads their buttcheeks to do whatever a bunch of ******** bankers and technocrats want. Just look at our fake elections. Both sides are rigged. Buy silver Germany 2.0 incoming. On top of that millions of misguided investors think buying bitcoin is a good idea when in reality it is worse than the petrodollar.
We do live under authoritarian regime tho. I believe that both societies are more or less equally free overall. It's really just a factor of population more than government oppression that Chinese government seems more oppressive than it is. It could be argued that US government produces more lies and propaganda per capita. At the end of the day, I just want to own firearms and assets. Don't tread on me / live free or die is all I need. I couldn't live the same life I have here as i could in China, but it's more because China is more competitive and costly to do the same things I want to do here. Owning guns and property is generally much more expensive in China. It's not because of an authoritarian regime I would feel limited.
I dunno about that. I think it can be relativley easy to misjudge how bad it really is in China due to how their propaganda system works... then again that's true of the US and many other places so... Normally for this sort of thing, I'd say: "try it out and see what happens" but I wouldn't really wish that sort of thing on you or anyone really.
I've never lived in China, but I did live in Hong Kong and do have family in China, and have spent extensive time in 4 different countries with varying governing styles and when you get right down to it, on the day to day level, there's barely a difference with regards to "government." People like to make a big deal of it, and certainly it makes a difference to specific people at specific times, but I think it often gets overblown with regards to political rhetoric. The fact, is beyond a certain point, once you have a stable state of government (i.e. not Syria or whatever), life is just life.
That way of thinking is insane. Tell that the Uygurs, Tibetans, Falun Gon Practitionsers, Hong Kong protestors (whoever's left anyway). Or a whole bunch of black men with syphilis between 1940's and 1970's in the US. Daily Life is Daily Life, yes, but it makes a big difference between when your government literally welds you into your apartment complex or reserves the right to arrest you without clear charges for years on end and not. Just because it hasn't happened to you or your family (yet, and I pray it never does) doesn't mean it isn't happening. The fact that most governments are going towards the oppressive side shows that they weren't always there. To say nothing of the impact of economic policies on daily life. Even in the US, Trump's administration had less inflation, cheaper gas, and wasn't openly supporting the fascist censorship of their political rivals compared to current. All of those things have an impact on day-t0-day life. Even those that aren't part of a currently targeted group, keep their heads down, and OBEY. In the meantime, more and more are pushing for mandating experimental medicines that don't seem to work (take a look at the isle of Gibraltar, with it's 99% "vaccination" rate among adults and a 2500% increase in cases), requiring people to wear masks that even the current Whitehouse Health adviser admits don't work, and segregating populations based on compliance. The mass murderer that forced COVID patients into nursing homes is even talking about getting as many stores as possible to require proof of vaccination. Sports teams are requiring unvaccinated players to wear "yellow wrist bands". Etc. And a show-trial hearing in Congress is trying it's best to paint anyone that showed up to Trump's rally/speech on Jan 6th as dangerous (and racist) terrorists... (despite the fact that Trump showed up late and the breach would have already happened before anyone actually at the event would have been able to get tot he Capital building).
You will have to forgive me for focusing on these 2 words. Please, please, tell me, that you are joking. Red: Gas prices higher than Trump election Green: Gas prices lower than Trump election Blue: Gas prices roughly equal to Trump election You want to know when gas prices really fell during Trump's 4 years? Whenever OPEC increased production and during COVID when the global economy shut down. The ONLY time that Gas prices were lower during Trump's 4 years than when he came into office was during the OPEC Supply War between Russia and Iran in 2020, which also coincided with the start of the pandemic. So much so that Trump HIMSELF said he wanted gas prices to rise and met with oil executives to negotiate a production cut. You can see the drop in production here: So then the supply war ended, US production had been cut, and guess what? Prices start going back up and Trump left office with gas prices virtually identical to when he came into office, with most of his 4 years having gas prices higher. But what about that "energy independence?" Ok, so you have to understand what that term means. It doesn't mean the US doesn't import energy. It just means that it imports less than it exports (i.e. it produced more than it used) in aggregate, but it still imports a lot of various types of energy. And also, the US was well on the way to this long before Trump was President, so pretending that he had anything to do with a trend that began nearly a decade before he came into office is a bit problematic - he just happened to be in office when the lines crossed each other and in terms of how "independent" the energy grid is, that marker is not particularly useful. ~ But yet, some people, shockingly, including you, believe that gas prices were lower under Trump despite the fact that you can count on one hand the number of months that prices were actually lower than when he came into office... How is this possible? I am honestly in total shock here. (I will answer the China stuff, but I wanted to make sure this gas thing got the attention it deserved first, because the fact that people believe literally the opposite of what actually happened is kind of yikes.)
to add to the gas price thing. US reserves of oil are in non-conventional reservoirs, this means it's more expensive to extract. If global oil prices are too low, the cost of retrieving the oil is much higher than to import it, so you are virtually forced to import and that alters the economic balance on countries that only have "expensive" oil reserves. So actually, a sensible U.S. president would want oil prices in a point where importing oil is actually a choice to make rather than foreign powers forcing his hand.
You guys still pay less per gallon than we do per litre and our electricity prices are some of the highest in the world after selling the state network to a chinese billionaire. The same genius's who created this mess are still pushing "clean" coal while trying to avoid renewables , so the question is not who can provide cheaper fossil fuels but why are they still in use.
Sure, I forvive you. I'll also happily accept your correction... to a point (overall economy has still improved under Trump, which likely impacts the "impression" of cheaper oil, combined with not importing as much... along with other issues) But this entire post of yours is still a deflection from the point. Which you have no rebuttal against. So instead you try to shift the topic in a different direction. The overall point remains. Even without a revolution, the day-to-day lives of people can change drastically with differences in government. It is insane to dismiss these differences. Revolutions and civil wars are fought for many reasons, including going against tyranny and authoritarianism. People have, and continue to to this day, fight, bleed, and die try try and secure or preserve freedoms for themselves and their loved ones. Hong Kong is a good example of this. People have been killed trying to prevent the CCP takeover that occured. While they tried (in part due to limitations on capability I'm sure) to protest peacefully, they were beaten, battered, imprisoned, and killed in response. This was over an extradition law... because they KNOW that Hong Kong (by degrees) would have relatively fair courts and prison-time... but that no such luxury would be afforded in "main-land" China. If it was roughly equivalent... if they believed their day-to-day lives wouldn't be impacted... they wouldn't have cared. Governments can be good, often they are oppressive and out to serve themselves instead of the people. There is a world of difference between the two. If you can't tell the difference between China under CCP and Taiwan... if you can't see the difference between the US and Mexico... in terms of day-to-day living... or the two Koreas... It's only because you don't want to acknowledge it, or lack the means to investigate it properly, and instead allow others to form your opinion for you.
... What the heck is wrong with you? You are increasingly become toxic here for reasons I cannot fathom. I begun with an apology for the aside, and then said at the end of my post I WILL reply to the main point. Why do you do this?
Another deflection. And while I can respect some subjective evaluation being at play here, also incorrect. Why do I speak out strongly about equating day-to-day life between an authoritarian goverment and one that is rapidly becoming one with your support? I'm against authoritarianism. Figured that would be relatively obvious. But whatever. I'm sure I've let my emotions get the better of me to a point. I don't like seeing people I care about and respect willfully be ignorant. It bothers me. When you correct me, I accept it, when I correct you, you say: "no, that's not real!" and provide nothing to substantiate it. That's you're choice, but it's one that's harmful to both yourself, me, and most everyone else. One might call it "toxic" from a certain perspective. None the less, I shouldn't let "getting upset" control or influence my actions and words. To the extent which I have insulted you, intentionally or otherwise, whether in this thread or any other, I apologize. And though you have not offered the same for insulting me in turn, I can forgive you that none the less. But I can only forgive what you've done to me... I can't speak for anyone else... only pray that it works out. All that said, I'm going to take a break from this for a while. I hope you will actually answer the main point I was discussing at some point, but know that I'll not likely check in any time soon. If anything else, that will give you more time to prepare your response, if you still wish to give one. I do not, however, flinch from my point, or withdraw that. If you still find that offensive, sorry, but saying it is still insane to think that authoritarian governments have no "day-to-day" impact versus less oppressive ones. Or that individual leaders within don't make a large difference. Take care, and be well.
I wasn't trying to say "governments have no effect on day to day life" in any way. Rather, that the western depiction of China is often overblown. I get asked this question a lot: "Why don't the Chinese people just overthrow the government? Do they like being oppressed?" But the truth is that the average Chinese person in China doesn't FEEL oppressed. Even in Hong Kong, when the protests happened - western media depicted them as heroes of democracy - but within Hong Kong? They were viewed similarly as BLM here - they had their supporters, but also their detractors. Many of the same criticisms of BLM were levied against the protestors, such as: They were dividing people and driving hate They were destroying property They were funded by outside groups (specifically, USA) They were blocking infrastructure and stopping people from going to work and disrupting normal lives Even if what they were protesting was correct, they were doing it wrong way Now, personally? I fully supported the Hong Kong protests - China is absolutely trying to change the terms of its arrangement with Hong Kong and other things. Look, as someone whose own grandparents fled from China, and as a kid, I watched Tiananmen Square happen on live TV, I am no stranger to China's atrocities. But the fact remains that the vast majority of any particular "government" doesn't really result in much to a person's daily life. It's similar to how most interactions with police are peaceful and don't end in a death, and even those that do, the vast majority of those are justified - despite the media focus on controversial shootings. Now, if you are a victim of an atrocity? Of course that's different, and of course those events are highly impactful, but those are outliers. Hope that explains my original statement. To pretend that what I wrote means I support authoritarianism is pretty ridiculous.
No, why do you ignore what I write and insert your own thoughts and then respond as though I wrote the thoughts you invented?
My correction was SPECIFICALLY about gas prices. I did not mention the other points. The fact that you accept my correction "to a point" feels quite silly. You literally believed the opposite of reality. This has implications on what else you might believe to be true but isn't. It also suggests that wherever you are getting your information might also be feeding you misinformation. You may want to consider where you are getting your information and ask yourself, "Why did I believe something that wasn't true?" ~ As for the overall economy, I will have to disagree. This one is a bit less clear, as it somewhat depends on what one means by "improved." Once again, rather than simply tell you stuff, I will support my statements with data and evidence. While the economy grew during Trump, the pace at which it grew was largely the same as under Obama. 2020 is obvious an outlier for various reasons, but as you we can see here, the GDP growth under Trump was roughly in line with what had come before. Note that 2016 was a bit of a global recession that the US weathered relatively well compared to other countries - Canada, for example, dropped all the way to 1%. Ok, GDP is a bit.. broad, let's look at some other indicators. How about unemployment? Ok, so it went down during Trump. Improvement, right? The problem is that the trend didn't really change. As you can see here, if you deleted that line and the years that helpfully shows you when Trump came into office, you would be hard pressed to say when Trump came into office and "improved" things. In fact, the rate at which unemployment declines actually goes down during Trump. That said, this is expected as it gets harder to reduce - which, of course, makes it a difficult measure to use when the trend remains the same and the change is relatively small. So what else? How about we ignore all the mumbo jumbo and get straight to the number that matters? JOBS. You'd think, with a massive tax cut that targeted the wealthy and corporations, that we'd have created a lot more jobs under Trump... wouldn't you? If the economy "improved" why was the average monthly jobs in the first 3 years of Trump... less than the last 3 years of Obama? (We use 3 years because 2020 shouldn't count against Trump.) Now, even if you argue the numbers were better under Trump... (and to be sure, SOME numbers probably are)... the massive deficit spending resulting from the tax cuts under Trump was supposed to improve the economy. In fact, Trump and his supporters told us it'd be 4, 5 maybe even 6% GDP growth - this never manifested. Instead, we get an "improved" economy that we can barely see any objective improvement in. Ok, you say, what we got WAS because of the tax cuts and things would have been worse without it. Fine, let's say that's true... what does it mean for the rest of the policy/platform then if things would have gotten worse without throwing a tax cut worth almost 2 trillion dollars in?
Another point I want to make is that I feel that people generally overstate the importance of individual elections or legislation. Yes, sometimes it matters a great deal like the Patriot Act - go Feingold for being the only one who voted against that monstrosity. But in MOST cases, I'd argue that the general trajectory of a country and its economy is pretty hard to change (well, short of someone actively sabotaging things or committing mass atrocities). For example, many people were very concerned about Trump destroying the country in various ways, and I said that I didn't think it'd be that bad. Even the fears about the Supreme Court I felt was overblown (though I still think ACB is still pretty low quality relative to the other judges, but that's a different problem). Specifically, my problem with Trump was more that he is just a bad human, with traits that we tell our children not to follow, so having someone like that be elevated to a position of such importance was a problem for me. I also said that I was glad that people got to vote for someone they liked for once. Now, he kind of proved me wrong with his pandemic response, but that's an outlier event of global proportions.
What a coincidence! So am I! Which is why certain actions of the Trump administration concerned me somewhat (e.g. censoring scientists, attacking the press, limiting the press, using force on protestors, sowing distrust in public institutions), not just because they happened, but more so because many people didn't seem to have the same concern. All of these, and others, are things that, well, dictators do. My mother in law and I have a lot of conversations, and during the BLM protests she asked me "Why did your family leave Hong Kong if you like Communism?" The idea that just because I support certain types of policies means that I am pro-authoritarianism is not uncommon, but it's pretty far off the mark. I consider myself a Libertarian - not the current American version, but more specifically a Geo-Libertarian (a whole can of worms that we don't have to get into here). I believe our policies should be effective and generally guided towards maximizing the average freedom/liberty of an individual in society not just currently, but for generations. In general, I find most of our focus and goals to be too short-sighted, but I also understand that most people have a hard time paying for or giving things up for an abstract notion that does not affect them or their loved ones. Thus, for me, I tend to focus on things like electoral reform that increase choice and the availability of being able to vote for the person you want - so stuff like FPTP, winner take all, gerrymandering, etc. are on my radar because that's actually potentially achievable. Because damnit, people should be able to vote for who they like and not against who they hate. I also try to get people to pay attention to their local elections, as those are actually usually more impactful to day to day lives than who the President happens to be. I like policies that preserve the country's limited resources, particularly those that have implications for future generations. This, of course, includes the threat of climate change - which, man-made or not, could have severe implications for future generations across the planet and we should prepare them for it instead of just hoping everything goes well when we are long gone. For example, right now I am really pushing for awareness of water issues as I feel that there is a water shortage coming soon and we aren't prepared. Left/Right/Lizard doesn't matter if people don't have enough clean water.
What a coincidence! So am I but it's not a shortage that will be the problem with polar caps melting at current rates. As we charge into the 6th mass extinction quibbling over which president produced more economic growth in what is a failed state seems redundant. I Suggest watching the link previously posted as Jeremy Rifkin presents a real solution to a global issue. "Hot Ocean yucky!"
I mean, it's all related, but the lack of clean drinking water is certainly a related, but different, issue compared to rising sea water levels that will have radically different implications depending on where you live.
True but when the ocean rises up to your door you can just boil some of it for drinking water and get free salt as a bonus. I doubt though after the devastating effects on agriculture which will have already occurred, there's much left to sprinkle it on.
On some points it certainly doesn't seem so. Supporting certain policies does mean supporting authoritarianism, in the instance that those policies are authoritarian. In other words, if they are based on: "the authorities said it must be so, so it must be so." This does not mean that one that does so "is an authoritarian" but it does mean they believe in and support the basic premise of it (that the "authorities" know better and therefore must be obeyed without room for debate). For example, if someone support Twitter, Facebook, etc. "filtering" information and determining whether something is "misinformation" of their own unilateral accord, that person would support authoritarianism. Likewise if they did it at the behest of "government officials" and the like... which incidentally we have a lot of evidence pointing towards that, including "hard evidence" such as email exchanges and the like showing that specific interaction on a number of different points, including on the political sphere and impacting campaigns; or response to discussions on health-related topics, etc. To your credit, while you don't generally criticize it, you at least don't practice it. So I'm not saying this particular example applies to you. However, with regards to other topics, I would say it most certainly does. Even from the standpoint of agreeing that carbon emissions are a concern for example, supporting the "Carbon Tax/Trade" Credits seems to me an example of blindly following what authorities say is a good solution. The reality is that it would likely not have nearly the positive influence in terms of tax emissions from corporations that you, I believe, seek from it. But rather actually give them more power and financial tools to control both potential competition, and the people in general. Likewise, your apparent support of wide-spread vaccination and mask usage is driven not by scientific data (available data shows no positive benefit from either so far) but because government and corporate-sanctioned "experts" say it's what should be done. Despite many other "experts" saying that one or the other (or both should) not be utilized as they are (but don't get the same treatment/respect as those sanctioned by the "authorities"). You're far from alone in this of course. Authoritarianism is "popular" when people are scared enough, or otherwise overly controlled by their emotions. Your comments that life in China "isn't that bad" is largely based on the CCP's metrics of how "nice" it is there, of how the "average" person is doing financially and with regards to access to important services. It completely ignores the lack of political, religious, economic, and philosophical freedoms within that nation; to say nothing of the racial discrimination which occurs there. It's like arguing that "at least Mussolini kept the trains running on time." And I think also it ignores the general impunity with which the government has been locking down it's citizens or letting cities flood. In the end, rather than a "Libertarian" (even the proper meaning rather than the modern travesty) you come accross as a fair-weather authoritarian. As long as the action seems to support something YOU like and ascribe to individually, you don't mind the means it's brought about; even if it suppresses those that disagree. That's the impression I've gotten from you over the past few years. *shrug* in all likelihood you view me in the same way. If so, at least one of us no doubt has an incorrect view of the other. Something related: "In the end, Truth belongs only to God. It is up to the people (individually) to discover and accept/reject the Truth. When such a process is ceded to corporations, governments, and/or religious institutions, that is when authoritarianism starts; whether it be in the form of fascism, tyranny, or religious dogma. Those of you whom have supported the determination of "Truth" by such institutions, and denied the right of the individual to make such determinations and choices themselve, are thus in subbordination of authoritarianism; and have denied the most basic individual human right to all: the right for one to think for themselves. I say to you: "Repent! And turn to God, and ye yet may be saved."" And that too is up to the individual to accept or reject. Though we might not always agree on the best method to achieve this, I do firmly believe we are in accord with this goal. Opening up the elections system, pulling out the dross and patching up a number of things, is something that is very important.
