China to create largest mega city in the world

[KentXie]

Originally Posted by GW2500

Man wants to be free and that isn't entirely the case in China. They can get as cosmopolitian as they want. But freedom is a basic human desire that won't go away ever. And eventually they might also have to care about their poor, that slows down business. Look at us and unions. Granted w/ unions they also got corupt and power hungry, but fair pay and benefits increases cost of production greatly. It also makes it way less enticing for a company to manufactor goods in China. I'm not saying China wont experience great economic growth. I'm saying once they eventually have eqaulity and freedom, the cost of doing business becomes much more expensive. Which is a pain America experiences. It may take a century, but it will happen. There is no way w/ all the interaction the free world will have w/ China that its' people won't want the freedom and equality that they see in so many other places.

That's true. However there is some things I would like to state and while it is somewhat controversial, it is something most people in capitalistic and democratic countries don't seem to know. Freedom, in the definition you stated is inefficient in certain ways. Not so much as inefficiency in a capitalistic definition, but development wise and progression. Label me socialist if you want but as you know most people in the world don't know how the world works. Blame Bush or Obama for the economic conditions all you want but they play a small part on how the economy changes. Aside from the policies and war expenditures, which I might add when spent on equipment made in the US actually benefits the economy as long as the companies that produces them spend it in other industries, the government have no control over how we spend. The other influence is the Feds. However the greatest factors are the consumers themselves. As I stated earlier, the majority of people do not know that, and blames whoever is in power for their problems not knowing that they are at fault for the poor economic conditions.

Which brings me to my point. As much as freedom is desired among all people, giving people too much freedom slows progress down in certain areas, not including investments. While in the US, people bicker over tax and how to spend the tax, leading to small bit by bit projects that take forever to be built and never a major project. When the Great Depression started, the government took over and funded infrastructure projects such as the Hoover Dam to put people back to work as well as benefit the country. Nowadays, a hostile debate would occur when such project arises because certain people won't benefit from it. It's always I GOT MINE AND SCREW THE REST. And this is where countries that are not democratic or capitalist seem to thrive. They control which projects will receive funds. And these are major projects that here in the US, people would be appalled because of the huge spending of tax payers' money. You think China would be able to build a HSR system at such speed under a system similar to the US today? Think again. Endless squabbing will result in nothing being built. I just read about the Masdar City in the visionary city thread that the UAE is building. It would be nearly entirely self-sustainable. Here we have trouble putting wind farms near Nantucket. You think people wouldn't protest against the ban on cars within the city?

This is why I don't believe the Chinese will have an uprising. As long as the country continue to improve its infrastuctures and economy they won't have much to complain. it's just the way they are bred. Call it brain-washing all you want but sometimes, you DON'T know better than the government.

There just needs to be a balance.

[Shepard]

Democratic capitalism actually did work well without an overpowering sense of "I-got-mine-screw-you" for quite a good run. Part of what defined that era was a consensus that just like democracy can only work with checks and balances, so too can capitalism only work with checks and balances. The turning point, in my mind, was deregrulation in the financial industry. Instantly, consolidation meant that capital became divorced from communities. Debt as a way of life became marketed and widely accepted, and the anonymous holders of that debt cared little for anything but steady returns. And finally, inequality grew as never before, putting Americans on vastly different pages and undermining a sense of social consensus, a development which has now become inextricably wedded with intractable culture wars.

I believe that democracy stands a better chance in China now than it does in the US, primarily because the Chinese people have come to accept that capitalism must, like democracy, be held to checks and balances for it to work and for democracy to maintain a social consensus. Note that Russia had no such foundation after the USSR fell, and hence its decline into oligarchy.

[statler]

Guys, this is an intelligent and informed discussion about a politically charged topic.

Please start with the name calling and accusations or we will have to ask you to leave the internet.

[KentXie]

Originally Posted by Shepard

Democratic capitalism actually did work well without an overpowering sense of "I-got-mine-screw-you" for quite a good run. Part of what defined that era was a consensus that just like democracy can only work with checks and balances, so too can capitalism only work with checks and balances. The turning point, in my mind, was deregrulation in the financial industry. Instantly, consolidation meant that capital became divorced from communities. Debt as a way of life became marketed and widely accepted, and the anonymous holders of that debt cared little for anything but steady returns. And finally, inequality grew as never before, putting Americans on vastly different pages and undermining a sense of social consensus, a development which has now become inextricably wedded with intractable culture wars.

I believe that democracy stands a better chance in China now than it does in the US, primarily because the Chinese people have come to accept that capitalism must, like democracy, be held to checks and balances for it to work and for democracy to maintain a social consensus. Note that Russia had no such foundation after the USSR fell, and hence its decline into oligarchy.

My fear is that they will follow the same path as the US. Like you said, Demeocracy did work...at the beginning, until ignorance and lack of intelligence among the populist undermine the nation. Not to sound elitists but most of people are mere sheeps. Look anywhere and you will come upon people that are just lack any knowledge on how the world work and the problem is that these are the most vocal of any groups. These same poeple are constantly paranoid over anything, from believing that vaccination is the government's attempt to kill off people to believing that the world is about to end because the media decided to report more on earthquakes. As much as I wish that everybody should be allow to control their destiny, many of them would run themselves off a cliff given a chance to do so. Yes, freedom is what everyone wants, but it's probably for their own good if they do not have complete freedom. Working to benefit all instead of individually is great. The problem is finding a system that can accomodate freedom along with it and I believe China is step-by-step trying to achieve that balance.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Originally Posted by KentXie

My fear is that they will follow the same path as the US. Like you said, Demeocracy did work...at the beginning, until ignorance and lack of intelligence among the populist undermine the nation. Not to sound elitists but most of people are mere sheeps. Look anywhere and you will come upon people that are just lack any knowledge on how the world work and the problem is that these are the most vocal of any groups. These same poeple are constantly paranoid over anything, from believing that vaccination is the government's attempt to kill off people to believing that the world is about to end because the media decided to report more on earthquakes. As much as I wish that everybody should be allow to control their destiny, many of them would run themselves off a cliff given a chance to do so. Yes, freedom is what everyone wants, but it's probably for their own good if they do not have complete freedom. Working to benefit all instead of individually is great. The problem is finding a system that can accomodate freedom along with it and I believe China is step-by-step trying to achieve that balance.

I think you are watching too much Fox news. Most of the people like you describe are the fringes, the 10%-20% of crazies who are just loud, dumb, and crazy. As Jon Stewart says, regular people are just busy.

That isn't to say that regular people can't be more informed and better educated. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy to keep the population dumbed down to hold on to control, but clearly the government/our population isn't working to its potential.

[GW2500]

I agree w/ pretty much everything that is said. When it comes to building something a authoratative govt is best. None of this listening to NIMBY nonsense. But the flip side is sometimes the NIMBYs are right. In regards to Boston, just about never, but power does corupt and the Chinese govt will eventually need checks and balances. And I agree if your getting paid your willing to look the other way about a few personal freedoms for a while, but in the long run its a rash that will get scratched. Especially when 500 million (total guess) still live in the third world.

[statler]

In regards to Boston, just about never,

295, West End, Scollay Square are three big ones that the Authorities got wrong. In the case of 295, it was the NIMBYs that saved a good swath of the city.

I agree the pendulum has swung too far but shoving it back in the other other direction doesn't mean everything will be better. Just a different type of bad.

[GW2500]

^ Good points, but also it also seems to me most of the great neighborhoods of Boston were built before neighborhood input as well (though I could be wrong). So Im not sure which way is up.

[KentXie]

Originally Posted by vanshnookenraggen

I think you are watching too much Fox news. Most of the people like you describe are the fringes, the 10%-20% of crazies who are just loud, dumb, and crazy. As Jon Stewart says, regular people are just busy.

That isn't to say that regular people can't be more informed and better educated. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy to keep the population dumbed down to hold on to control, but clearly the government/our population isn't working to its potential.

No I don't watch Faux News. In fact your comment only proves the fact. The loudest, dumbest people make the noise but actually votes on issues. The normal people are too busy to do so. However, I wouldn't come to say that the regular folks knows much more either. When time gets tough, everyone tend to show their colors.

When the economy suffer, everyone blames the government and occassionally the government does make mistakes that worsen the problem. But most of the time, the people demands the government to make choices that only makes the problem worse. In fact, some of the demands just don't make sense when taken together:

Cut taxes -> Lowers Government Revenue
Balance Budget -> Cut spending but due to the cut in taxes, spending must drops even more
Improve infrastuctures -> Spending cuts prevents improvement in infrastructure
Create jobs -> Aside from a small job growth from the cut in tax, government is unable to create jobs because they lack the funds to create infrastructure improvements.

When these bills goes up to the house and senate, you have the crazy loonies debating against the regular folks. The result is political bickering that ends in a stalemate that impedes a quick recovery. And while I'm not pointing my fingers on either party for slowing recovery, I'm more likely to criticize the conservatives because they are making those demands that when applied together, it doesn't make sense.

The democratic system works on paper, but they never get anything done, especially with opposing views so far from each other. You will have people arguing vehemently against improvements, dragging a project out and increasing the cost. If we could have a judge or a group of people who will do an independent research on the cost and benefit and limit the amoung of influence of both the developers adn the people and then decide whether it's justified, things can get done. Imagine how much further ahead the US if they did finish laying the HSR tracks around the US, how much money the government would have gained with increase economic output that would have offset the cost of building it.

[bdurden]

Originally Posted by statler

295, West End, Scollay Square are three big ones that the Authorities got wrong. In the case of 295, it was the NIMBYs that saved a good swath of the city.

I agree the pendulum has swung too far but shoving it back in the other other direction doesn't mean everything will be better. Just a different type of bad.

Let's also not forget that it's the "authoritative" gvt of Boston that has gotten the Seaport all wrong. I'm certainly not in the NIMBY corner (especially when it comes to decent infill projects in Boston proper that get squandered by ignorance) but I'd take small, incremental development on the Seaport anyday over what Menino and friends came up with.

What we need is actually quite simple -- inspired city planning, talented planners, and an educated city council and redevelopment authority. Many lesser (and greater) cities have such.

[statler]

Eh, NIMBY's may not have been directly involved with Seaport Square but it has their fingerprints all over. Lots (too much) open space, too wide roads, short buildings, etc.

The last non-Nimby influenced thing built in Boston (I think) is actually pretty good - the Hancock.

[DominusNovus]

Originally Posted by KentXie

Cut taxes -> Lowers Government Revenue

It does not automatically follow that tax cuts will decreased government revenue. There have been several tax cuts that have led to such increased economic activity among the private sector that revenue has increased. In general, it seems that the ideal is a tax rate somewhere just under 20% of the GDP, as that is where tax revenue seems to stay, no matter what (unless you were to completely overhaul the entire tax structure, which would bring with it a host of other problems).

[KentXie]

Originally Posted by DominusNovus

It does not automatically follow that tax cuts will decreased government revenue. There have been several tax cuts that have led to such increased economic activity among the private sector that revenue has increased. In general, it seems that the ideal is a tax rate somewhere just under 20% of the GDP, as that is where tax revenue seems to stay, no matter what (unless you were to completely overhaul the entire tax structure, which would bring with it a host of other problems).

That's very true, a reference to the Laffer Curve. However there has been no indication that the tax cuts have increased revenue. What I find ironic is that those that want tax cut often cite Reaganomics which according to Reaganomics, if a increase in tax increases revenue, then the optimal thing for the government to do is to increase the tax rate until it hits the pinnacle.

[DominusNovus]

Originally Posted by KentXie

That's very true, a reference to the Laffer Curve. However there has been no indication that the tax cuts have increased revenue. What I find ironic is that those that want tax cut often cite Reaganomics which according to Reaganomics, if a increase in tax increases revenue, then the optimal thing for the government to do is to increase the tax rate until it hits the pinnacle.

Actually, I was referring to Hauser's law, which basically says that, in the United States, no matter what the federal tax rate is, you're going to end up with revenues about 19% of the GDP (grossly simplified).

And there is evidence (though nothing in economics is conclusive) that the most recent tax cuts (2003) did, in fact, increase government revenue (receipts reached their highest point).

But it is indisputable that lower taxes will always enable economic growth in the private sector, and higher taxes will always discourage such growth. Of course, there are essential services, particularly infrastructure, that are generally considered best paid for through tax revenue, upon which economic growth depend.

[GW2500]

^^ This is a bit broad but read the enitre thought.

I think critical things are left out of the equation. First we borrow 40 cents on the dollar. Second we've been neglecting infrastructure. And finally before tax cuts: surplus, after: deficit. We are not even coming close to covering our costs. And like Obama logically and factually pointed out, much to the chagrin GOP, complete discretionary spending cuts won't cover the gap. Not even close when you factor in infrastructure upgrades that HAVE to happen. Common sense dictates that both cuts and increased taxes (primarily for those who live better than 99.98 % of humanity) are neccesary .

And in specific I'll tell you where the cutting should start the Dept of Defense (though I want increased armor for troops). It has some awfully expensive WWII relics out there. Our base in Japan.... don't think we need to worry about insurrection during reconstruction. That ship has sailed and so should we, out of Asia. It will become increasingly obvious that that is China's area to maintain. N Korea is ultimately China, S Korea, and Japan's problem, 50,000 of our boys is generous enough. I don't see them getting too worried about a conflict in the Caribbean. It's obvious to me we are over-extending our military's presence. That?s the real tax killing us. Ask the British and Roman Empires how over-extending worked for them.

Also the argument for keeping Gitmo open is pretty illogical as well. We don't want to put the terrorists on the continental US. So we can handle having serial killing cannibals, nuclear + biological weapons/ waste in America, but not unarmed, detained terrorists. Guess some people forgot we already detained mass murdering terrorists in the US, white ones no less (McVeigh).

I know I'm kind of going all over the place, but the point I'm making is by changing strategy w/ our defense, I believe America is just as safe, and we save substantial money. You ask me the real way of fighting war on terror is in inteligence, drones, smart bombs, and the olive branch to the world's poor. Keep in mind the theather of war is very portable these days via Aircraft Carriers, Subs, and ICBMs.

[DominusNovus]

Before I continue on my side of the issue, how lenient are the rules on going off topic? Because I've no doubt that we could fill several pages worth of thread on what should be cut or not cut from the federal budget, which is only remotely tangental to the general idea of the abilities of authoritarian government vs. democratic government.