Nasrallah, Netanyahu agreed to a truce before Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader: Report
Nasrallah, Netanyahu agreed to a truce before Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader: Report
Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib said in an interview with CNN that both Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had agreed to a temporary truce just before Israel killed Nasrallah in a massive air …MEE staff (Middle East Eye)
Manawanui, the navy's specialist dive and hydrographic vessel, ran aground near the southern coast of Upolu on Saturday night as it was conducting a reef survey
I think they found the reef.
China’s plan to get around Western tariffs: Fill the world with factories
China’s plan to get around Western tariffs: Fill the world with factories
In response to the trade war, the Asian giant is investing billions of dollars abroad in plants, especially in industries linked to the energy transitionGuillermo Abril (Ediciones EL PAÍS S.L.)
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
"it's just supplemental" would have initially worked to describe us industry shifting out
investment is finite, so if you have the choice between a and b, investing more money in a is by definition investing in a at the expense of b
it occurs when it's economically more efficient to move industry out of your country than to keep it in
unless you're suggesting china will willingly run the bulk of its industry with decreasing efficiency over time for the sake of keeping lower paying jobs domestically
These developments look increasingly structural. The authorities' stance since 2020, including regulatory tightening and zero-COVID lockdowns, appear to have inflicted long-lasting damage to China's private economy, the dynamism of which was a defining feature of its economic miracle in the past four decades. Nearly 20 months into China's COVID reopening, the private sector has yet to bounce back, despite many pro-private business utterances and gestures from China's leadership.
i'm not sure private businesses failing over covid is a good thing for an economy
A lot of companies should have sunk in covid and been consumed by more prepared ones.
either way, mass company failure due to covid doesn't imply anything about the split of china's economy going forward
it occurs when it's economically more efficient to move industry out of your country than to keep it in
It is not, generally speaking, more economically efficient to deindustrialize your own country. The logic you are using is neoliberal with "efficiency" meaning, "maximize profit for the financial sector". This is an arrangement planned due to US-based economic crises and should not be projected onto China like some iron law. The US, as the global seat of capital, is uniquely harmful.
i'm not sure private businesses failing over covid is a good thing for an economy
The thing they wanted you to see were the statistics, not the guesswork and editorialization from that article.
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
It is not, generally speaking, more economically efficient to deindustrialize your own country
china is literally taking money that they could invest in domestic industry and investing it in industry overseas
i guess now you get to explain why they're doing that if some form of economic efficiency isn't the answer
The thing they wanted you to see were the statistics, not the guesswork and editorialization from that article.
"don't look at that bit of the source i just chose to show you" would be an astounding bit of mental gymnastics
china is literally taking money that they could invest in domestic industry and investing it in industry overseas
This does not address what I said. Foreign direct investment is not the same as deindustrializing your own country. There are also more subtle, or at least often ignored, financial aspects regarding balance of payments and derisking from the dollar and eventual attempts at decoupling.
i guess now you get to explain why they're doing that if some form of economic efficiency isn't the answer
What do you think economic efficiency is?
"don't look at that bit of the source i just chose to show you" would be an astounding bit of mental gymnastics
The expectation is that you engage critically so that you can match up the source with the part they are talking about. In this case, it is that the balance between public and private ownership has shifted towards public in recent years.
Instead of engaging with what parent was talking about, instead an editorializing quote was found and now we are talking about that and other poor attempts at wit.
Foreign direct investment is not the same as deindustrializing your own country
and as i said at the outset, "we're just investing elsewhere" is how us outsourcing started
"they're not doing it at the expense of hollowing out their domestic industry" is a completely baseless claim when following an equivalent timescale the same would have been true about the us
What do you think economic efficiency is?
ratio between resources expended to resources produced
The expectation is that you engage critically so that you can match up the source with the part they are talking about.
they were using the source to argue that china is intentionally moving away from private ownership. the source saying that the move is unintentional is absolutely materially relevant, and it's laughable that you'd accuse me of failing to engage critically when you missed that.
and as i said at the outset, "we're just investing elsewhere" is how us outsourcing started
You are confusing yourself. In this thread, the things we went back and forth on in this segment is your claims about sending industry overseas and economic efficiency.
As I said, deindustrializing your own country is not economically efficient. Try your hardest to stay germane.
"they're not doing it at the expense of hollowing out their domestic industry" is a completely baseless claim when following an equivalent timescale the same would have been true about the us
Everything you have said is baseless speculation that China's FDI is going to follow the exact same path as that of the US, which was backed by finance. But both the geopolitical and economic foundations are different, as I have explained. We have not discussed this with any depth because you are illogically talking in circles despite me having already addressed this silly vibes-based point.
ratio between resources expended to resources produced
A ratio? So you quantify it? Quick, what was China's economic efficiency for 2023! Presumably it's just a number that, if represented by a fraction, is less than 1. Every political economist would love to learn that the thing you just made up is actually a very important statistic.
they were using the source to argue that china is intentionally moving away from private ownership.
There is only one (1) sentence where they talk about this and they didn't say that. If I had to guess, you are projecting your reaction.
the source saying that the move is unintentional is absolutely materially relevant, and it's laughable that you'd accuse me of failing to engage critically when you missed that.
Yeah that's obviously the part I said was editorializing. You have confused yourself again. Maybe take a little break from trying to get some "owns" in? They're not landing like you think they are.
Again, you're thinking from a perspective of a market economy which China is not.
i’m not sure private businesses failing over covid is a good thing for an economy
I'm sure that saving countless millions of lives and preventing people from becoming sick and turning into a strain on the healthcare system is actually very good for the economy.
Again, you're thinking from a perspective of a market economy which China is not.
no, i'm thinking from the perspective of resources being finite, which they are
also, i don't think you know what a market economy is. china literally calls itself a market economy
I'm sure that saving countless millions of lives and preventing people from becoming sick and turning into a strain on the healthcare system is actually very good for the economy.
the meme of "countless millions of lives" aside, you making this argument means that you accept that china shifting more to state-capitalism than regular capitalism isn't intentional, so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make
no, i’m thinking from the perspective of resources being finite, which they are
Resources being finite has fuck all to do with where manufacturing happens.
also, i don’t think you know what a market economy is. china literally calls itself a market economy
China is a state planned economy where markets act as an allocator. The state makes the decisions where the resources should be allocated however. That's the difference from actual market economies where allocation happens completely organically based on the whims of the investors.
In fact, what China actually calls itself is a birdcage economy where the market acts as a bird, free to fly within the confines of a cage representing the overall economic plan. informaconnect.com/a-birdcage-…
the meme of “countless millions of lives” aside, you making this argument means that you accept that china shifting more to state-capitalism than regular capitalism isn’t intentional, so i’m not sure what point you’re trying to make
It's always adorable when people use terms they have very shallow understanding of. There is a fundamental difference between regular capitalism and what you refer to as state capitalism. The purpose of labor under regular capitalism is to create capital for business owners. Capital accumulation is the driving mechanic of the system, hence the name. Meanwhile, the purpose of state owned enterprise is to provide social value such as building infrastructure, producing food and energy, providing healthcare, and so on.
The point I'm very obviously making is that the state has very different goals from private capital, and thus it allocates labor differently. If this is a point that you have trouble understanding then maybe you can spend a bit more time educating yourself on the subject instead of debating a subject you clearly have a very tenuous grasp of.
Resources being finite has fuck all to do with where manufacturing happens.
china invents capability to snap fingers and materialize manufacturing capability out of thin air
The state makes the decisions where the resources should be allocated however.
i'm not willing to have this debate with you over whether china is a market economy when i've literally provided you a source that quotes china calling itself a market economy
It's always adorable when people use terms they have very shallow understanding of.
you mean like when you said china wasn't a market economy, despite china saying they were a market economy? and then when you accused me of using terms i didn't understand then providing a description of those terms that showed i'd used them accurately? what point do you think you're making here?
The point I'm very obviously making is that the state has very different goals from private capital
you're trying to make that point by pointing to a shift away from private capital, which is a completely meaningless statistic because the shift away from private capital wasn't intentional so doesn't imply anything about an economic plan going forward
i literally spelled that out for you last time and you still chose to deliberately miss it
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
china invents capability to snap fingers and materialize manufacturing capability out of thin air
If by that you mean China spends decades building out manufacturing capacity and setting up supply chains then sure.
i’m not willing to have this debate with you over whether china is a market economy when i’ve literally provided you a source that quotes china calling itself a market economy
I've literally provided you with the source explaining the context of markets within the Chinese economy and explained why your understanding is superficial. Clearly you don't care about actually understanding the subject you're opining on.
you mean like when you said china wasn’t a market economy, despite china saying they were a market economy?
Literally explained to you why it's not, you didn't bother addressing any of that and just continued bleating about China being a market economy. Really showing the quality of your intellect here.
you’re trying to make that point by pointing to a shift away from private capital, which is a completely meaningless statistic because the shift away from private capital wasn’t intentional so doesn’t imply anything about an economic plan going forward
LMFAO
i literally spelled that out for you last time and you still chose to deliberately miss it
if you work on your reading comprehension a bit, then you'll see that I've addressed your nonsense already
If by that you mean China spends decades building out manufacturing capacity and setting up supply chains then sure.
i'm sitting here arguing that china has invested more than zero in setting up external manufacturing, then suddenly you forget what your point is, and emphasize just how much china has invested in setting up external manufacturing
you're so absolutely rabid to just disagree with anything i say, you're willing to render the chain of your argument completely incoherent to do it
yes, china spending decades building out supply chains for external manufacturing inherently means they're less invested in domestic industry, or they wouldn't spend decades to do it
I've literally provided you with the source explaining the context of markets within the Chinese economy and explained why your understanding is superficial.
you're arguing with china's interpretation of their own economy by providing a non-mutually exclusive definition
good job
then you'll see that I've addressed your nonsense already
again, combined with the "LMFAO" above this is completely incoherent
maybe work on addressing the argument i've spelled out to you multiple times rather than falling back on the tried and true "well your reading comprehension is bad" like we're 12 year olds arguing in the youtube comments section
if you're so sure you've addressed it, quote it, and i'll do the reading comprehension for you and explain to you why the thing you quoted isn't actually addressing anything
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
you’re so absolutely rabid to just disagree with anything i say, you’re willing to render the chain of your argument completely incoherent to do it
The only one incoherent here is you bud because you're discussing a topic you don't understand. This is a perfect example of you being incoherent:
yes, china spending decades building out supply chains for external manufacturing inherently means they’re less invested in domestic industry, or they wouldn’t spend decades to do it
China is not developing external manufacturing at the cost of domestic manufacturing, nor is there anything inherent here. China is increasing capacity to supplement the domestic capacity. The fact that you can't even understand such basic things is frankly phenomenal.
you’re arguing with china’s interpretation of their own economy by providing a non-mutually exclusive definition
Yeah, I'm arguing that Chinese understand how their economy works better than an ignorant internet troll.
incoherent
That word you keep using doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
if you’re so sure you’ve addressed it, quote it, and i’ll do the reading comprehension for you and explain to you why the thing you quoted isn’t actually addressing anything
This is not a long thread, go back and read it instead of making vapid replies here.
China is increasing capacity to supplement the domestic capacity.
being less dependent on a thing automatically makes you less invested in a thing, but this is besides the point
if you spend decades of effort ramping up manufacturing in one location (away), then that's decades of effort you didn't spend ramping up manufacturing in another location (at home)
i literally cannot fathom how you're so furious to be wrong that you're still arguing contrary to that
I'm arguing that Chinese understand how their economy works better than an ignorant internet troll.
well china say their economy is a market economy, and you say otherwise, so i guess this puts you firmly in the ignorant internet troll camp
This is not a long thread, go back and read it instead of making vapid replies here.
your last three replies haven't even been making an argument. they've just been quibbling over some definitions you're wrong about, and shooting yourself in the foot by making my case for me.
what are you even doing here?
being less dependent on a thing automatically makes you less invested in a thing, but this is besides the point
If I have two apples and I buy a third apple then I'm not less invested in the two apples I already had. Let me know if I need to explain this in simpler term for you.
well china say their economy is a market economy, and you say otherwise, so i guess this puts you firmly in the ignorant internet troll camp
Well China doesn't say that, and linked you an article explaining what China actually says. Feel free to keep ignoring that and regurgitating nonsense though.
If I have two apples and I buy a third apple then I'm not less invested in the two apples I already had. Let me know if I need to explain this in simpler term for you.
you just gave me an example that proved my point
if you have two apples, you can afford to lose one of those apples less than if you had three apples. try again.
you also probably wouldn't spend a decade obtaining an orange if you were only interested in your two apples forever and ever.
you also replied to the bit that i explicitly called out as not relevant, which is hilarious
"if you only have time to go to one shop, then going to the grape shop means you can't go to the apple shop"
did it get through to you? are you about to reply telling me that any shop that sells grapes would realistically also sell apples or something? that seems in line with the quality of debate you've been providing thus far.
Well China doesn't say that, and linked you an article explaining what China actually says.
literally linked you a source referencing china explaining their own economy
and again, the interpretation you linked to isn't mutually exclusive with "market economy"
did it get through to you?
Oh yes, you've further confirmed that you have no clue.
if you have two apples, you can afford to lose one of those apples less than if you had three apples. try again.
Having more apples doesn't make your existing apples less valuable. In terms of production, this translates into demand. As long as your demand is growing ALL your factories are just as valuable.
did it get through to you?
literally linked you a source referencing china explaining their own economy
If you can't even understand what the article says then there's no point having further discussion.
and again, the interpretation you linked to isn’t mutually exclusive with “market economy”
It's not an economy where the market makes decisions where labor and resources are allocated. The government decides that and the market acts as an allocator within that context. If you can't understand how that's different from a market economy then you have no business having this discussion because you don't understand what you're talking about.
Having more apples doesn't make your existing apples less valuable.
having a surplus of apples means you value an individual apple less, yes
that's how the concept of "having things" works
As long as your demand is growing ALL your factories are just as valuable.
so if 20% of your factories are now somewhere else, whereas before it was 0%, then the share of value taken up by domestic factories has decreased, as has the share of demand they're managing to satisfy by domestic factories
if china completely stops building new factories at home, and in 30 years 90% of their factories are abroad, and 10% are at home, would you say their industrial base had been "hollowed out", even though the absolute number of factories at home is the same?
If you can't even understand what the article says then there's no point having further discussion.
i pointed out that there was no point discussing this further when you said that china was wrong about their own economy, but for some reason you insisted on it
It's not an economy where the market makes decisions where labor and resources are allocated. The government decides that and the market acts as an allocator within that context.
this is like saying "the government doesn't decide that; steve from the finance department decides that", or "the market doesn't decide that; a distributed network of private investors decides that"
if the government bases their decisions off the market, then the market is the one making those decisions, just like steve is making his decisions based on what he's been told to do from the government, and just like investors are making their decisions based on what they think the market is telling them to do
you can quibble about how the same market effects will produce different results, but the result is still a market economy
i'm genuinely so excited for your next fruit analogy that accidentally explains why you're wrong
having a surplus of apples means you value an individual apple less, yes
Nope, that's not how any of this works. If you have constant demand for the good, you value all the factories producing the good equally. The fact that you can't get this through your head is frankly incredible.
Anyways, it's pretty clear that having a rational discussion with you is not possible since all you do is just regurgitate the same nonsense over and over. I'll let you have the last word that you evidently crave. Have a good one bud.
my guy i already had the last word of consequence like 5 posts back when you stopped actually responding to things i was saying in a coherent way and started arguing with china
since then it's all been for the love of the game
If you have constant demand for the good
quite literally, you're now arguing with your own hypothetical
"As long as your demand is growing" -> not constant demand
but it doesn't matter because i foresaw your difficulty with this one, and addressed both the case of constant demand and growing demand
all you do is just regurgitate the same nonsense over and over
maybe check your post history i think the call might be coming from inside the house on this one
you are comically bad at backing up a worldview you evidently hold so strongly, and it's utterly fascinating to me
"it's just supplemental" would have initially worked to describe us industry shifting out
The difference being that China is not neoliberal. This does not coincide with deindustriakization, crushing unions, maximizing "free markets", etc. It also does not correspond to anything like the regimes the US used to make offshoring in its own interests, namely to force imbalanced export economies on other countries premised on unequal exchange and a dollar-heavy (im)balance of payments. Worst case scenario of success is that other countries, particularly in Africa, develop industry, infrastructure, and good jobs while China gains trading partners and stays heavily industrialized, as they care for their real economy.
investment is finite, so if you have the choice between a and b, investing more money in a is by definition investing in a at the expense of b
At the level of entire countries this logic can break down. For example, third world countries have to figure out what to do with all these dollars they receive from their imbalanced export economies. You can't just spend it on anything, yiur country needs to function and you can't buy everything from everyone at fair prices this way.
The difference being that China is not neoliberal
i'd respond to this paragraph but you really haven't made a coherent argument past "us bad china good"
At the level of entire countries this logic can break down.
no, because resources are always finite. the resource doesn't have to be "money".
i'd respond to this paragraph but you really haven't made a coherent argument past "us bad china good"
Please try your best to engage in good faith and not make things up. There's plenty for you to ask about or engage with if you have the interest.
no, because resources are always finite. the resource doesn't have to be "money".
The original topic was investment, which includes money and is relevant to the balanve of payments issue, particularly with African countries with th3 aforementioned imperialized economies. You cannot understand, for example, offshoring, without understanding unequal exchange, and this makes what might seem like a finite resource problem into one where you must think about coercion and graft and where production is directed.
Please try your best to engage in good faith and not make things up.
if you want, you can try restating the argument you were trying to make before you slipped and typed out a ramble about how the us is bad
The original topic was investment
money isn't the only thing you invest when you set up a manufacturing base
if you want, you can try restating the argument you were trying to make before you slipped and typed out a ramble about how the us is bad
Slipped up? I directly responded to the comparison to US offshoring that you made to explain why this is different. I guess you have no answer.
Please do your best to act in good faith. It's okay for you to say, "that's a good point, I will think about it" or not reply at all. It is not okay for you to make things up.
money isn't the only thing you invest when you set up a manufacturing base
If you took ten seconds to think about it, having any financial component makes my point correct and yours incorrect. Your zero sum game logic simply does not apply on multiple levels, as I have explained.
This might be clearer to you if you actually dealt with what I said instead of cherry picking.
I directly responded to the comparison to US offshoring that you made to explain why this is different.
and your argument boiled down "us bad china good"
If you took ten seconds to think about it, having any financial component makes my point correct and yours incorrect.
genuinely, what are you talking about?
- you can't invest in factories abroad without by definition investing less in factories at home because resources are finite
- us outsourcing started with "it's just supplemental" too, so you can't use that as a bulwark against any notion of further outsourcing
and you're coming at me to say that if money changes hands then that's not the case?
and your argument boiled down "us bad china good"
It doesn't, but you seem enamored with pretending this. If you actually responded to what I said rather than deflecting you might learn something. Or at least not repeat openly dishonest claims.
genuinely, what are you talking about?
The next sentence added all the context you should need. Zero sum logic doesn't apply here and part of the reason is the financial component. You'd be less confused if you engaged directly instead of dithering and avoiding what I say.
you can't invest in factories abroad without by definition investing less in factories at home because resources are finite
You keep repeating yourself rather than look at what I've already said. You would be less confused if you stopped avoiding my points about finance and neoliberal approaches and foreign direct investment and dollar recycling.
us outsourcing started with "it's just supplemental" too
I've already addressed this many times.
so you can't use that as a bulwark against any notion of further outsourcing
I don't even consider all FDI to be outsourcing, including this. This is because of the actual financial and geopolitical productive underpinnings of China's strategy. This is all part of BRI.
You are confused because you are just arguing with yourself rather than try and understand others.
If you actually responded to what I said rather than deflecting you might learn something.
restate your point if you fluffed it up the first time, but no, what you provided initially was devoid of anything worth responding to
You keep repeating yourself rather than look at what I've already said.
because what you've said is nonsense that doesn't address anything i'm saying
let's keep this real simple: do you agree or not with the fact that spending resources to set up a factory in location A means you, right now, have fewer resources to spend setting up a factory in location B?
if no, where do the additional resources come from in the here and now? and, more importantly, why has china not already constructed an infinite number of factories?
restate your point if you fluffed it up the first time
- Go back and re-familiarize yourself with what I've said. Make a real effort instead of relying on deflecting crutches. I'm not going to feed into your poor behavior.
- By your logic I don't need to, as I didn't "fluff" anything up.
but no, what you provided initially was devoid of anything worth responding to
If you would like to continue this conversion, you will have to respond to it. In fact, I will ignore the rest of what you say until you do. Good luck.
The EU Wants Chinese car factories to operate locally.
Chinese EV maker BYD welcome to open factory in France, French finance minister says
European nations compete for Chinese EV factories, jobs even as EU weighs tariffs
China's Dongfeng in pole position to build an auto plant in Italy - Italian sources
I'm not sure why we care. It's just simple competition, if your opponent is able to sell a cheaper product, either lower your price or deal with it. It's basic capitalism.
While I'm for tariffs on import to at least make cost equal to minimum wage for workers (to equate for the pay wage differential) if the factories are being built in house, it means they are following country standards including wages, I don't see the issue.
like this
HeerlijkeDrop likes this.
Free market propaganda has never been applied under equal circumstances. It is rhetoric used by capital to reduce or destroy regulations, labor, national sovereignty, etc. Western industrialized capitalist coubtries built their industry and infrastructure using tariffs to protect it, then turned around and demanded the opposite from other countries so that they would have to buy their products and sell whatever those colonizer countries wanted (at the time, usualky raw materials).
Now that other countries are ascendant, US-based "free market" capital is gladly re-embracing protectionist logic. It has only ever been about maximizing their profits. The "theory" of free markets tails capital, it isn't a science or even a valid line of thought.
And this behavior is somehow sold to the public as a way to boost the economic wellness of the people living under the isolationist programs, but instead it enables profiteering corporations to exert more control over the artificially narrowed market space.
Locking the door with the fox(es) in the henhouse.
economics is far from a simple competition… things like game theory lead to monopolies being bad for everyone, and that’s what china wants in a lot of cases. the chinese government subsidises some of its industries dramatically so they can take over a global market and then slowly backs off the subsidies when they’ve killed their competition
it’s similar to microsoft’s embrace, extend, extinguish strategy
This is Western liberal cope.
China makes 5-year plans and publishes them. Building factories around the world is a massive planning effort. They are not reacting to tarrifs that were levied in the last 18 months. The tarrifs are a reaction.
China has been building international infrastructure, including factories, for years now. By the time a factory comes online to "avoid tarrifs" the tarrifs would have already had their maximal effect. Further, tarrif regimes can be changed in hours while factories take years to plan and execute. There is simply no way China is thinking they're going to outmaneuver recent tarrifs with factories.
It's nonsense
for the obvious benefit of having an uprising and potential revolution in Europe
You are a scary dude. Either you know and understand what you just said and don't give a shot about the horrors of that, or (more likely) you don't understand it, which somehow makes you scarier and more dangerous. You're one of those guys who loves to talk about revolutions without ever realizing the cost of that
You're exactly the same as those trump supporters who would never die for their convictions, but they'd happily see other die for it.
Fuck you
You're asking for people to be empathetic to an enemy on the internet. Good fucking luck with that. In real life I hope the people who call for violent revolution are just blowing off some steam and aren't actually advocating for the wonton destruction of uncountable lives. Like you I'm concerned they're not, but I've learned that there's no room for nuance online.
Which is why to everyone else I'm saying this, just because I said I don't want an enormous number of people to die, doesn't mean that I don't want to see capitalism fall. I just don't want to commit a Holocaust doing it. Now go ahead and downvote me now.
"The very concept of "revolutionary violence" is somewhat falsely cast, since most of the violence comes from those who attempt to prevent reform, not from those struggling for reform. By focusing on the violent rebellions of the downtrodden, we overlook the much greater repressive force and violence utilized by the ruling oligarchs to maintain the status quo, including armed attacks against peaceful demonstrations, mass arrests, torture, destruction of opposition organizations, suppression of dissident publications, death squad assassinations, the extermination of whole villages, and the like."
-Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds
Revolution has saved countless lives the world over, to denounce revolution without denouncing the incredible violence of the status quo is anti-Leftism.
Okay, so I never said never use violence or to just accept the status quo. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not so nieve that I think any real change won't happen without a lot of violence. Violence is distasteful and should be avoided, but is also sometimes necessary. If King Louis' head didn't get chopped off, I would probably have been born a literal serf instead of a modern version of one. If the oligarchs of today lost their heads I wouldn't feel a thing, when they bite the dust I don't. I just think the conversation on lemmy.ml needs to take a pause and think for a second. Cause it seems to me that many people here want to kill everyone who is higher up on the social ladder than they are. That just perpetrates the endless cycle of violence, it doesn't make a better world.
Sure the world would be better without Jeff Bezos, or Elon Musk, or many others. I've read discussions people seemed to take seriously suggesting that millions to tens of millions of people in their country deserve to die. Apparently saying don't kill people with complete disregard for the importance of life is a bridge too far for this part of the internet.
Cause it seems to me that many people here want to kill everyone who is higher up on the social ladder than they are
Can you explain? This doesn't seem to be the case at all. Maybe it's just that I'm a Marxist-Leninist and understand what other Marxists are getting at better.
I've read discussions people seemed to take seriously suggesting that millions to tens of millions of people in their country deserve to die
Do you have an example?
A bit nitpicky, but the idea behind SWCC isn't that the Capialists in the PRC are "the people's Capitalists" or anything, but that the State as a DotP allows market competition in a controlled manner similar to a birdcage. As these markets form monopolist syndicates, they centralize, and socialize, by which point the CPC increases public owership. Communism is achieved by degree, not by decree. Trying to achieve Communism through fiat has historically resulted in struggles and difficulties.
I recommend reading Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism for an overview of what that entails.
Hundreds of thousands march in London, demanding end to Gaza genocide
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/21087304
By MEE staff
Published date: 5 October 2024 19:45 BST[We need a lot more of these]
Hundreds of thousands march in London, demanding end to Gaza genocide
Hundreds of thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched through central London, calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the Israeli-led escalation across the Middle East.MEE staff (Middle East Eye)
‘Western Press Obscured the Sheer Terror of What Israel Had Carried Out’: CounterSpin interview with Mohamad Bazzi on Lebanon pager attacks (FAIR)
‘Western Press Obscured the Sheer Terror of What Israel Had Carried Out’: CounterSpin interview with Mohamad Bazzi on Lebanon pager attacks
"What unfolded in Lebanon last week was something dystopian, but it wasn't a movie. It affected real people's lives."FAIR
like this
aramis87, Lasslinthar and osaerisxero like this.
The gripe is genocide. Supposedly the most unacceptable thing.
If not now, when?
Actually you and I have a third choice called not voting for either. You are under no obligation to vote for or support a genocide. You can, in fact, spend your efforts opposing it rather than carrying water for its perpetrators.
And I am not sure who told you that you have more leverage after elections rather than before, but they have no idea how leverage works or what building power looks like. But really, this is obviously not about strategy or organizing, but about how to justify yet again announcing support for the status quo - genocide edition.
Please actually oppose genocide instead of making excuses for it.
Protests after she is elected will be a lot easier and effective than a Trump administration.
wrong, when Good Team is in the white house, libs tend to turn off and not show up to protests/organize/etc because Good Team already won. when Bad Team gets in they at least pretend to care. a recent example you can look at is 2020, when trump was in office people were protesting police brutality, state repression etc. after 2020, not a peep, and more commonly active derision for protests.
like this
fif-t likes this.
65% of Israeli Jews oppose criminal prosecution for soldiers suspected of raping Palestinian detainees (Mondoweiss)
65% of Israeli Jews oppose criminal prosecution for soldiers suspected of raping Palestinian detainees
A shocking new poll shows that almost two out of three Jewish Israelis oppose criminal prosecution for soldiers suspected of gang-raping Palestinian detainees at the Sde Teiman torture facility.Adam Horowitz (Mondoweiss)
like this
SolacefromSilence, aramis87 and Dantpool like this.
like this
spaghetti_hitchens likes this.
🌏🌎🌍🌏🌎🌍🌏🌎🌍🌏🌎🌍
☝️🤠💖 I love this freaking thing.
💢💢 If you don’t… 💢💢
🤯🔨🤠 Things could get bad. 🥰🚀🚀🚀🚀☢️
like this
celeste, DarkenLM and ElcaineVolta like this.
like this
fif-t and ElcaineVolta like this.
Yeah bruh, maybe don’t malign an entire culture and religion. You ML fucks are all the same, though.
A shocking new poll shows that almost two out of three Jewish Israelis oppose criminal prosecution for soldiers suspected of gang-raping Palestinian detainees at the Sde Teiman torture facility.
This article is already 6 weeks old but it's a good reminder that there seemed to be no convictions since then.
Rape is ingrained in israeli society.
like this
ElcaineVolta likes this.
Oh yeah I was bringing it up again since some nerds are hovering over everything I post and I consider that an opportunity for remedial lessons.
A chatroom I have made many times is "Old News" and I think it might be a nice community addition. I wouldn't moderate it though, too many arguments!
It isn't rape. By Israeli law, only the rape of a citizen is considered rape.
You might not like it, but it's the law of the country and they have sovereign rights. And because all of you are just surface level wikipedia scholars that downvote with your gut instead of getting my point that all of you are looking at this wrong.
Because you can't think of any other way of looking at the world.
Is it a terrible thing? Yes
Do I hate it? Yes
Does Israel, by its nature as a recognized country, have every right to set its own laws? Yes
Got to say, I hit the nail on the head here.
Made all my analysis and educated guesses about your pathologies based solely on your spree of rage trolling comments back in the technology community.
I hadn't even bothered to look at your profile for other comments until just now....and I didn't even have to flick the screen down any to confirm my earlier diagnoses.
Seriously, get help.
I'm not sure how anyone can consider the act of rape to be in any way acceptable.
"65% of Israeli Jews defend violent sex offenses."
Interesting Engineering: Hybrid energy raft could power 1,000 homes a day with wave, wind, solar
NoviOcean’s wave power technology, developed over several years, has been tested in wave pools and a real environment near Stockholm. A small version powers homes on Svanholmen island, proving the concept works at sea.
On one square kilometer, 15 wave power plants can generate 15 MW, compared to offshore wind’s 10 MW. Combined, they can produce 25 MW, sharing the costs of the sea area and transmission cable.
According to the firm, the hybrid approach delivers more consistent energy, as waves generate power for days after the wind subsides. Additionally, wave plants can be placed closer to shore without visually disturbing the coastline.
Wave, wind, solar hybrid energy raft can power 1,000 homes daily
NoviOcean's innovative Hybrid Energy Converter combines wave, wind, and solar power, generating double the energy of wind alone.Jijo Malayil (Interesting Engineering)
like this
timlyo, ShaunaTheDead, kubica and Lasslinthar like this.
I speculate that this balanced out by the fact that a single one of these can more easily connect to the power grid and are more efficient to deploy and maintain in large quantities.
You could place these almost anywhere and they will generate something.
power 1,000 homes per day
Good that the journalist does not confuse kW and kWh but "homes" is a very understandable unit they somehow got wrong.
For fuck's sake, a microreactor could do all of this for the footprint of a bedroom (plus some additional space for the staff). It would work for years and constantly provide power with no issues from storms, dust, salt, or needing distributed maintenance (and environmental disruption) over a square km.
This isn's just some generic hand waving. Go look up the company Radiant. It's going to happen within a few years. Demonstration is slated for 2026.
Relevant link for those interested in what OP is talking about.
energy.gov/ne/articles/3-micro…
I’m not yet convinced this technology is the future or anything, but it does look pretty promising. We’ll know better when DOME testing begins in 2026.
Forensic Architecture är en banbrytande forskargrupp som ägnar sig åt att avslöja och dokumentera sanningen om brott mot miljömässiga och mänskliga rättigheter med hjälp av banbrytande tekniker med öppen källkod och digital modellering.
like this
Someplaceunknown, IHeartBadCode, ShaunaTheDead, AGuyAcrossTheInternet, wagesj45, OfCourseNot, SuiXi3D and Drusas like this.
"I promise I won't get political"
two drinks later
"COME OUT YEH BLACK AN' TAN"
like this
DarkenLM likes this.
🎵🎶 Haaaang Down, Ya Blood red roses, Hang Doooown
Oh, ya Pinks and Posies! 🎶🎵
like this
DarkenLM likes this.
Huawei laptop teardown shows China’s steps toward tech self-sufficiency
China’s demand that the public sector step up use of domestic semiconductors can best be seen within Huawei’s Qingyun L540 laptop.
The “safe and reliable” device features a self-designed processor and a Chinese-made operating system, having stripped out foreign-made components and software as much as possible.
The computer, which is being snapped up by governments and state groups across the country, has become the signature model of China’s localization campaign known as Xinchuang, or “IT application innovation.”
Source: arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/0…
like this
MaiteRosalie, timlyo, Lasslinthar and ShaunaTheDead like this.
There's no reason why they can't make it work, and as the article explains it's simpler to make it work than ASML machines. The main complexity there comes from the fact that they need to be compact so ASML can ship them around the world. It's also always easier to do somethings that's been done before because you know which path to take. A lot of the difficulty of doing something for the firs time is that you inevitably have a lot of false starts while settling on a workable approach.
This is simply a matter of China allocating resources to the project till it works, and they have a lot of incentive to make it work. The only question is how long it will take, and given how rapidly China has been advancing in tech, I would bet it'll be much faster than people in the west anticipate.
Tech Self sufficiency? On the hardware level, it will take a while. In the software level, I don't think it will ever happen. Yes, the desktop and software suite they use, and the distro they're packaged in are Chinese, But....
the Linux Kernel, the GNU stuff, the systemd stuff, the Freedesktop specifications, Xorg if they still use it, wayland protocols and wlroots, are all developed by people from The West, so if they really want independence, I want to see them replicating all that work from millions of people across the last 30-40 years.
like this
wagesj45, timlyo, DarkenLM and SaltySalamander like this.
don't like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
like this
wagesj45, switchboard_pete, timlyo and ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ like this.
Huawei contribute quite a bit to the linux kernel, it's a pretty international effort.
Just the first statistics I could find showed they contributed more changesets than any other organisation lwn.net/Articles/915435/
I assumed that Linux was not really under the control of the US, but I guess the Foundation is incoporated in the US as a 501(c)(6) and the kernel org itself is a 501(c)(3), so that does give Congress more levers on the kernel than I expected.
Not to mention that most (all?) of the major corporate funders of the kernel are US-based...
I really hope the kernel doesnt get (geo)politicized.
Edit: based on @RobotToaster's link, yeah it looks like every major "employer" contributor to the kernel other than Huawei, Linaro, Arm, and Suse are American. Arm is probably working mostly on support for its architecture, so I guess it's Linaro (UK) and Suse(DE).
That's not to downplay the role of independent contributors, but it seems like a good indicator of the "power of the purse strings".
Edit 2: here's a more recent set of development statistics from LWN. Looks like the ordering has changed quite a bit since 2022, or it varies a lot with each kernel version
On the hardware level, it will take a while. In the software level, I don’t think it will ever happen.
I'm no computer engineer, but this seems like a silly take. Hardware requires supply chains and some of the most closely guarded technology in the world. Software requires programmers and time.
the Linux Kernel, the GNU stuff, the systemd stuff, the Freedesktop specifications, Xorg if they still use it, wayland protocols and wlroots, are all developed by people from The West,
Literally anyone can download those things and fork them. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's already chinese contributors. And if China really wanted, they could even ignore the GPL and not publish their changes to the source code 😲
Not everyone can download extreme UV lithography.
like this
DarkenLM likes this.
like this
Aatube likes this.
This is not only irrelevant but it erases the nature of global contributions to free and open source software.
How many Russians, alone, contributed to these?
None of the high end chips were made in Chinese fabs, and the device barely qualifies as a "laptop" besides the form factor. For some bizarre reason they used a USB5744 USB 3.2 5Gb/s hub chip, which tells me the following:
- Their CPU doesn't even have multiple USB3 interfaces
- Their CPU doesn't even have a single 10GB/s USB interface, which has been standard for may years
- They don't really care about using local parts only, because they have alternative products like the GL3590
Unless We get better close up tear down photos, this devices primary purpose is propaganda
like this
DarkenLM and SaltySalamander like this.
"You idiot! You didn't even hit any civilians!"
Yeah, yeah...
You're still not getting the north back kiddo.
Sunbeam Fishing Ltd är ett fiskeriföretag i Fraserburgh i Skottland som ägs av familjen Duthie. Huvudägare är Lesley Jane Duthie och James Burnett Duthie. I styrelsen för företaget sitter båda två.
Iraqi resistance launches airstrike against occupied Golan: Report (IRNA)
Iraqi resistance launches airstrike against occupied Golan: Report
Tehran, IRNA – The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has conducted a drone attack against the occupied Golan Heights in southwestern Syria.IRNA English
Help her, asshole
(Yes I know it's not op)
Edit: commas are important people
What happens when you bring a cat her toy?
She sighs, exasperated, and says, "I wanted you to open all the cabinet doors you fucking moron"
like this
Oofnik, NoneOfUrBusiness and LPS like this.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and…
They're gonna accept money from China in exchange for favorable trade deals.
like this
massive_bereavement, NoneOfUrBusiness and Beacon like this.
like this
Bad_Engineering and Azathoth like this.
like this
massive_bereavement and Azathoth like this.
like this
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
Did a little digging. Found one interesting piece from Hudson institute including an opinion piece from former head of world bank. Main points: China, and Russia to a lesser extent, are prioritizing engagement with Africa both for for economic and political purposes (large UN voting bloc). China favors market rate loans over foreign aide, article suggests they cannot afford straight aid even if they wanted to. Loans from China are denominated in dollars, so strengthening USD and increasing interest rates playing a large role in debt. African nations paying more in debt repayment than receiving in aid and economic benefit. Traditional capital markets are no use to Africa because capital is flowing to developed countries and companies that already have cash. Doesn’t seem like China wants to repossess infrastructure they built, they actually want loan repayments. China doesn’t want to take write downs because they are concerned the money will be used to repay western creditors. US foreign policy is weak in Africa, infrastructure aid would go far because would improve terms from China. It’s a far more complex situation than I had thought. I plan to do more reading on the topic so I can be better informed.
I've yet to see any of you coming at me cite anything that isn't a Washington think tank. Why don't we try something other than begging Sᴏᴜᴛʜᴇʀɴ Bᴏʏ™ to use Associated Press/AFP sources, citing hardcore right wing neocon think tanks that appear first on Google search, and instead try asking Africans about what they think of China?
You don't even know how to find that information, do you? Post-Ukraine Google has you thumbfingering RAND Corp and The New York Times into my mentions. You are one stinky boy!
like this
Bad_Engineering and Azathoth like this.
Oh no way, they will tell you to nationalize assets, impose fiscal austerity and all the other things that you can hear from a corporations board room in search of records profit in the next quarter even if it means nosediving economics in 4 months.
So yep, aid is worse than loans.
This article has literally no basis for this other than "Western critics blame the president for being too leftist and Chinese" and it's a pro-western Taiwanese source that simply parrots AP/AFP
Are you serious rn?
In December 2017, unable to repay a huge Chinese loan, Sri Lanka handed its Hambantota port in the south of the island to a Beijing company on a 99-year lease for US$1.12 billion.
This is just the reality, my friend. You can look past western propaganda but seem to really struggle with anti-western propaganda.
like this
Azathoth likes this.
Listen "friend", your reality is based purely on sources from the Western financial class. So much so that you're not even aware of the neocolonialist financial pressure they placed on Sri Lanka to begin with. It's just China China China, because you only look at what you're told to look at. Because you're a well-trained little pig dog, aren't you? Who's a good boy??
You mean when a Canadian company recommended that Sri Lanka should sell hambatotan as part of debt renegotiations, that was more significant than the IMF impoverishing the entire country? Did you think they took the port back to China? While China is responsible for 10% of the debt and 63% of the debt forgiveness in the country?
Do you do anything other than repeat Wall Street news? Vulture funds made huge risky investments to Sri Lanka they knew could not be repaid and used the international law system - the US run mafia - to threaten them into paying off debts that should have been forgiven.
Taking more control over assets in countries being stripped by the Western vulture capitalists is a good thing. That's why China has lots of under the table agreements to recoup losses on or take control of assets if the IMF does this shit or if there's a regime change now. Risk is a real thing, debts are not sacred, I understand that's out of your depth as your understanding of finance is limited to what your masters tell you.
The alternative is simply threatening people to pay up, the Wall Street way.
It's the complete opposite.
- An African leader on the hypocrisy of those saying China is imperialist.
- China africa panel: if you want actual infrastructure, you go to China, not the west.
- Five imperialist myths about China's role in Africa.
- Evo Morales - Why China and Russia aren't imperialist, but the US is.
- Yanis Varoufakis on China's foreign policy dealings with Greece and Africa.
- Vijay Prashad and Qiao Collective - Is China imperializing Africa?
- China has forgiven over $10B in debt, over half to Cuba, but also including > 20 African nations, Pakistan, and Cambodia.
- The chinese debt trap is a myth.
- China writes off $6M in debt to rwanda, provides another $60M in grants.
- China forgives over $78M in Cameroon debt.
- China writes off $36m Mozambican debt.
- China writes off substantial amount of Angola debt.
It's gonna be great TV
Typical liberal brain rot fantasy. You are literally making shit up from fantasy stories and then playing them in your head and enjoying it.
The reality is that there is no Chinese debt trap and Dessalines gave you a great list of articles to read. Read them.
En man vid namn Robert Hedarv var bjuden till Jimmie Åkessons bröllop. Hedarv är gift med den ledande Sverigedemokraten Mattias Karlssons exfru. Detta faktum har varit känt sen i somras. Så det är klart att Åkesson visste att Hedarv är gängmedlem. Allt annat är är inte trovärdigt.
Netanyahu lashes out at Macron over call for ‘arms embargo’ on Israel (PressTV)
Netanyahu lashes out at Macron over call for ‘arms embargo’ on Israel
The French president calls for an “arms embargo” on the Israeli regime over the war on Gaza, prompting a fiery backlash from the regime’s prime minister.PressTV
like this
wagesj45, NoneOfUrBusiness, Benign and Lasslinthar like this.
like this
fif-t likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Zionist regime once again targets Syria-Lebanon borders (IRNA)
Zionist regime once again targets Syria-Lebanon borders
Tehran, IRNA-Syrian media confirmed on Saturday night that Israel has bombed the Qusayr area in the suburbs of Homs, a border town with Lebanon.IRNA English
like this
Dantpool likes this.
floofloof
in reply to Peter Link • • •mkwt
in reply to floofloof • • •Or, uh, maybe this story is simply false and mistaken reporting.
In fact, it appears Israel was not a party to this proposal, which was floated by the United States. In order for a ceasefire to work, you gotta get all of the belligerents on board.