Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Mischief Maker]

Spoiler

Jesus! For a second there I thought those heads on her shelf were real.

[Ed Oscuro]

It's the social contract that's at risk in favour of more stable pastures.

Such as?

Economies tied to currencies without debt, governments that don't allow corporate involvement (and encompassing corporate risk) in banking (and therefore control all domestic banks), countries without a Federal Reserve cartel loaning money to the government at interest, therefore making the government completely in control of their money supply, debt free.

And countries with a shitload of oil and gold for good measure.

We've already discussed the possibility of the renminbi becoming the new global reserve currency, so I'm not sure why this needs spelling out - I just don't think it's likely to happen soon because Beijing is on a mission to devalue their currency at every opportunity so they can keep signing manufacturing contracts with Walmart.

Important part in bold. Basically you have constructed a fantasy of what you'd like to happen, but you know it doesn't. Why is this?

Going down your list:
- "Countries with a shitload of oil and gold" We've already established that gold is pretty much worthless as a commodity. Its "value" is one of the biggest bubbles in the world now. Oil is useful, sure, which is we've had many decades of worrying about the oil curse. Personally I'd replace gold with lithium. Guess who has the biggest lithium reserves?

- "Economies tied to currencies without debt" sounds slightly backwards, but in any case China has more debt than the US and that amount is growing. Having debt is not a problem if economic growth can maintain it, but it's a bit late to start explaining basic Keynesian economics here. In any case China's indebtedness is becoming such a problem that it's starting to make news. I'm not hopeful it'll work out cleanly, but I'd like it to.

- "Governments that don't allow corporate involvement in banking" Going to a completely centralized bank would seem to be the reverse of your anti-Fed standpoint. I'm not sure what it is you want here. The major thing that's a problem in the US is that we have banks that don't serve their customers well, and we have banks speculating with people's deposits. I'd agree if your argument is that we had to split apart investment and retail banking, but that's not the direction China is heading. Since the '80s they have allowed non-state-owned banks to operate.

- "Countries without a Federal Reserve cartel" China also has a central bank and it is quasi-independent. They've only had deposit insurance (like the US FDIC) since last May. As said before, your "cartel" label for the US Fed is just that - a label, not a profound or even necessarily useful insight. The US Fed and the Chinese central bank do the same kind of things - they both set interest rates and hence both can be said to be engaging in command economy-style planning (obviously a bit of a crank page but it gives the idea). Up until recently many of their policy tools have been ineffective.

- "...therefore making the government completely in control of their money supply, debt free." This is just completely and utterly wrong. Not only is it impossible to "completely control" the money supply without destroying its usefulness (how else are you going to keep speculators out?), but China's money supply is far from debt-free no matter how you look at it. Here's an important quote from that paper just above:

The PBC has had to intervene heavily in foreign exchange markets to prevent further nominal appreciation of the renminbi. This has led to a dramatic accumulation of foreign exchange reserves, from
a level of $156 billion in 2000 to $3.2 trillion as of the second quarter of 2012 (Prasad and Ye, 2012). While China does have capital controls in place, these controls have become increasingly porous over time, compromising the independence of monetary policy (Prasad and Wei, 2007).

A further constraint is that, until recently, banks’ deposit and lending rates were directly controlled by the government. Since 2003, interest rates have been progressively liberalized and the situation now is that the baseline lending rate constitutes a floor for lending rates and the baseline deposit rate constitutes a ceiling for deposit rates [...]

The first bit comes at the end of a section talking about China's pre-2012 monetary policies with floating the currency. Now, there's been efforts to liberalize the currency - which is about giving up control. Although I'd like that to succeed, the many years of China pegging its currency to the dollar meant that it had to buy up a lot of foreign reserves just so its exports would remain competitive - and that spending spree only exacerbates debt problems. The second para talks about liberalization of bank rates, which is again putting the lie to your argument that China "controls its currency."

I don't mind the idea of the RMB becoming a useful reserve currency, but they're a ways off. In the meantime they are moving opposite the direction you suggest and most of their international currency trades are simply in Hong Kong.

[Skykid]

I don't mind the idea of the RMB becoming a useful reserve currency

Let's just get one thing clear while we're in the process of discussing this: I don't want the RMB to become the standard (or even useful) reserve currency anytime soon, since that's not in-line with my personal investments.

My "constructed a fantasy of what you'd like to happen" is much more in-line with what the PRC would like to happen. I need the RMB devalued so my British pound goes further. If the RMB strengthens it's going to hurt me currently. But in the future? If I can solidify my investments in the next year then a stronger currency would be beneficial in the long-term. In fact I'm counting on it.

As it stands the RMB is already too strong for my liking. Things are getting very expensive here. It's not strange to pay $6 for an americano, if that puts things in perspective.

Anyway, that aside:

We've already established that gold is pretty much worthless as a commodity.

Let's remember that this discussion was originally (or at least why I joined it) regarding the stability of the Federal Reserve system and its structure. I only mentioned gold and oil because actually having gold and oil is better than not having any.

Lithium would be a smart one, but unlikely. Google says Chile has by far the largest lithium reserves if you're at all interested though (more than twice that of China).

Another thing we established as equally inconsequential on this forum a long time ago is national debt - but god damn, you really surprised me with the information on China's debt. In fact I'm not actually sure how that works. Not long ago I was looking into the debt by country and China was in the green (perhaps a couple of years back - 2014).

So the information you linked is "total debt" and not debt per capita or debt based on GDP. Looking into this with a little more detail, the US's debt per citizen is $58,000 and China's is Y26,800 (equivalent to approx $4000 per person). Of course this is kind of erroneous because everyone knows China's population is absurdly large, and a vast proportion of those individuals have no meaningful income whatsoever.

But if you look at debt versus GDP the US's is at 104.60% while China's is at 65%. So essentially the borrowing versus the GDP is healthier from a sustainability perspective. That said, I'm still pretty shocked to see the debt that high. What I can't fathom and I'm having difficulty factoring in (feel free to help if you can) is that Chinese held US debt is (as of Oct 2015) $1254.8 billion dollars - or $1.25 Trillion - according to this information. So who have China borrowed from?

China also has a central bank and it is quasi-independent.

China's central bank versus the US or UK, as examples, is a totally different beast. "Quasi-independent" would be a good way of looking at it, but in reality all Chinese banks are government owned. Relaxing laws to allow those banks to offer independent deals to customers is part of the country's development, in that it's designed to allow more people to afford property and obtain business investments. But in the end the corporate factor, where a bank can gamble all its customer's cash and risk bankruptcy in a serious recession - thus potentially bankrupting its patrons - is a minimal risk currently. Anyone can see that that's a much more stable system than independent international banks running wild lining their pockets, which is why I mentioned it.

There's also a restriction on Chinese business being able to invest in foreign stock exchanges too, to keep investments in domestic stock high - although now we're talking communism versus capitalism for real.

To round off, I'm hedging my own bets on an RMB currency devaluation and then future long term growth in-line with the development of the country. I really don't want the RMB to be the global reserve because that will screw me, but I still consider it to be rather well future-proofed. China's economic development is tied into its general development - they need to put the vast majority of the population into work. From a ground zero perspective this development is occurring right in front of my eyes: I've never seen a city grow so rapidly or so spectacularly than the one I'm in. It's been impressive enough to convince me to count on the country's economic future coming good.

Conversely I think the structuring of the US Federal Reserve fiat, loaning each dollar at interest, is potentially catastrophic if the wind changes and the aforementioned "social value" ever turns to apathy.

[Ed Oscuro]

Skykid, I love how you are actually using sources now, and not leaving me to guess at your motivations Yeah, it's always been quite obvious to me that exchange rates were at the top of your list of concerns as an expat, and as I like to make deals overseas (I tend to use the Euro and yen the most, followed by GBP and finally the yuan at the most distant place) I know what it feels like. But first and foremost every economy has to have its currency work domestically, and sometimes this means letting the currency lose value - for example, a classic criticism of the Euro is that it lets Germany use its weaker neighbors to pull down the value of the Euro, so Germany remains an exporting powerhouse much more than if it was still using marks. I'd agree with your statement of goals - I'm more of a Sinophile myself but my posts are based on what China ought to do for its own good regardless of feelings - so on that I think we're on the same page. However that doesn't change my opinion that much of your earlier postings were fantastic. It seems you've softened your opinion a bit of what would make for a strong currency. Lithium is found throughout South America's mountainous spine but also in the US. Yes, resources are better than not having any, but I'd still give the US a bit of an edge on resources considering how critical lithium will be to future energy production and every electric vehicle. This doesn't mean much if demand collapses, but right now it looks like US demographics and economic trends are on a better trajectory than China's is. I hope that corrects but Chinese demographics won't be as easy to fix as Chinese fiscal policy.

I like your debt as a % of GDP measure, but your numbers are wrong - the US' debt to GDP is indeed about 103%, but China's is over 230%, up to 282%, and a lot of that has been added recently. The markets are also looking at some other factors here - the absolute size bothers them and also future prospects. The Business Insider link I posted earlier mentions debt to GDP but also notes that China is continuing to pile on debt even as its economy slows - by this measure, debt to GDP is almost as naive a measure as just looking at absolute debt, because a high debt to GDP ratio that is consistently managed is not such a big deal - and the US has proved able to do that for decades. It doesn't mean it will always be able to do that but US deficit hawks have consistently proved wrong in viewing this as a problem. I really suggest having a read through that short article in its entirety to get an idea of where the debt is

So, about China's government control: It's absolutely not true that all banks are owned by the government. At some date - I'm not sure exactly when - China started allowing a lot of privately run banks to operate, and now there's hundreds of smaller ones.

The bigger issue is that China is continually caught up in its efforts to liberalize its market. Here are some very recent developments in China:

- Deposit insurance instituted for the first time (May last year)
- Banks allowed to freely set deposit and loan rates (also within the last year or so)
- China's central bank buys domestic stocks heavily to prop up their value (this isn't sustainable)
- China's state-owned enterprises still saddled with all kinds of cronyism, corruption, politically motivated prestige buys on impulse instead of commercially viable dealmaking, and other problems that researchers laconically describe as "inadequate capital discipline" (Thilo Hanemann of Rhodium).
- China institutes a ban on short selling, which is a routine practice in liberal economies

I think it would be harsh of me to suggest that China's problems are that it can't pick whether it wants to liberalize or remain Communist, but what is clear is that a lot of their market "fixes" are sending conflicting messages to buyers. But I think more important than this is that the old system of "do as suits the Party" does not work here. I do think that central planning can work better than people give it credit, but the flip side is that with people at the controls, things are never straightforward and business-focused as they need to be. I actually have some level of respect for how the Chinese government tries to operate, but they do not have the discipline or experience yet, and even worse they face substantial problems even if they do the exact right thing.

Conversely I think the structuring of the US Federal Reserve fiat, loaning each dollar at interest, is potentially catastrophic if the wind changes and the aforementioned "social value" ever turns to apathy.

I believe that most economists will agree, but this is true of all economies. So there are different ways of looking at this: Some economists say "sure, debt is like a Ponzi scheme, but what if you never called it in?" Some economists call for this explicitly and I think it's an interesting idea - just as interesting as the deficit-hawk conservative Austrians who are the ones who are going to share your debt concerns the most (which is odd, given what I know about your politics...you should think about that).

The current mainstream thinking about how the economy goes to shit is like this: With a high level of development, or resource shortages, or both, economic growth becomes unsustainable, and we essentially have to revert to a pretty much steady economy. What this would look like is beyond me - I can fathom that we might be able to have a society and economy without there being economic progress, but if you look into history - even the medieval society, and maybe even hunter-gatherer society - I see lots of evidence of economic progress. Now, losing economic progress might not matter much if development level was so high that we could just remain comfortable. It would, however, definitely bring down the notions of deficit-based growth, unless you explicitly decided to actually ignore the debt.

BryanM likes to talk about interest rates and Marx a bit - the sobering upshot of this is that if you expect continuous economic growth of some percent each year, you're still going to run into the absurd situation of hitting a physical limit - you hit a theoretical limit due to factors like "how many atoms are there in the universe," how much energy is available, and so on.

[BryanM]

A lot of that growth was put into the expanding population. In 1st world countries the birthrate is very often under the deathrate these days.

Anyway, it's kind of a sad state of affairs that you can't trust PBS these days. If you can't trust them, who the hell can you trust. Begathons didn't work out so well I guess. Also it's very convenient plutocrat also starts with "P" - National Plutocrat Radio.

Thankfully, a rubber sock puppet from the nineties has us covered.

[MintyTheCat]

China most certainly has its problems, be it social or historical.

For a start the place is filthy and has areas that are heavily polluted. It seems to me that they are making all the same mistakes that the west made but on a larger scale.

Take their air pollution for example:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249

Not to mention their birth policies and the effects it has on the overall population. What are the odds of girls to boys again - was it 20 to 1? Hardly a recipe for order.

China is merely trying to reach the level of many western countries and this will prove to be very difficult given the number of people residing their.
The western lifestyle for a very long time has been regarded as being highly unsustainable as it is.

India too has many of the same problems as China but is heavily constricted by its cast system.

Neither would be considered a paradise in many parts.

[Xyga]

Obligatory repost: http://youtu.be/RDrfE9I8_hs

[Skykid]

But first and foremost every economy has to have its currency work domestically, and sometimes this means letting the currency lose value - for example, a classic criticism of the Euro is that it lets Germany use its weaker neighbors to pull down the value of the Euro, so Germany remains an exporting powerhouse much more than if it was still using marks.

Yes, I also heard that accusation being leveraged at Germany. The important thing here is that China is usually accused (and often by Mr Trump) of currency manipulation to devalue the currency to maintain strength as the primary international manufacturer/exporter. I often wanted to comment on this but couldn't find a good thread or opportunity, but there's an internal conflict at work with regards to balancing currency value against the populace's ability to survive on low wages. There are an awful lot of people who don't have two jiao to rub together to whom the likes of McDonald's is a luxury. The PRC is hesitant to enforce the minimum wage (one does exist) or raise it in fear of losing out on international trade because the goods are suddenly more costly to produce. With that in mind, I actually agree with the accusations of currency manipulation, but at the same time how does one balance wages against manpower against manufacturing costs and ultimately economic survival based on GDP - and still ensure people aren't starving? It's not a conundrum I'd enjoy working on, but someone's got to do it.

I like your debt as a % of GDP measure, but your numbers are wrong - the US' debt to GDP is indeed about 103%, but China's is over 230%, up to 282%, and a lot of that has been added recently.

How recently?

I got the GDP versus debt percentage from Nationaldebtclocks.org. Here's China tallied at 65%, and the US at 104%. I'm not sure how recent the change is, but I assumed that site was rather timely based on its very nature.

The markets are also looking at some other factors here - the absolute size bothers them and also future prospects. The Business Insider link I posted earlier mentions debt to GDP but also notes that China is continuing to pile on debt even as its economy slows - by this measure, debt to GDP is almost as naive a measure as just looking at absolute debt, because a high debt to GDP ratio that is consistently managed is not such a big deal - and the US has proved able to do that for decades. It doesn't mean it will always be able to do that but US deficit hawks have consistently proved wrong in viewing this as a problem. I really suggest having a read through that short article in its entirety to get an idea of where the debt is

As we already discussed, total debt, national debt, public debt, debt to GDP etc, is all rather worthless unless one country decides to recall their debt - in which case there may be tensions in international waters. I just wasn't sure why, if the US owes 1 Trillion + to China, who China have borrowed from the accumulate their own debt. Not that it matters much.

One point that's more of interest to me, do you consider the slowing of the Chinese economy to be a long term problem? Time and time again economists get up in arms at the global ramifications of the economy slowing in China, but personally I consider it a plateau - you can only go full steam for so long, after which it's bound to relax. What I'm interested in is long term economic stability and growth. which is about all one can hope for really. I'm counting on the continued internal development of cities and international investment to create jobs, businesses and workforces out of the rest of the currently unused population, and by that I'm not referring to the urban unemployed but the vast rural untapped regions.

At some date - I'm not sure exactly when - China started allowing a lot of privately run banks to operate, and now there's hundreds of smaller ones.

In the region I'm in the following high street banks: ABC, Guangxi Bank, Bank of China, Bank of Liuzhou, Guangxi Postal Credit Union, ICBC, and probably several others I'm forgetting, are all there is. They're all govt. owned.

But I did go google-fu'ing and found the information you're referring to. One is Alibaba Jack Ma's, and another from Tencent called WeBank, amongst others. It's an interesting development and I'm not 100% sure of the motive, as up to now banking has been mostly under the PRC's control. I suppose it's just an experiment to continue to allow private enterprise and develop the economy, although I personally don't consider corporate banking anything but dangerous, and I actually thought they had a good thing going.

Regarding the introduction of relaxed lending:

The bigger issue is that China is continually caught up in its efforts to liberalize its market. Here are some very recent developments in China:

- Deposit insurance instituted for the first time (May last year)
- Banks allowed to freely set deposit and loan rates (also within the last year or so)
- China's central bank buys domestic stocks heavily to prop up their value (this isn't sustainable)
- China's state-owned enterprises still saddled with all kinds of cronyism, corruption, politically motivated prestige buys on impulse instead of commercially viable dealmaking, and other problems that researchers laconically describe as "inadequate capital discipline" (Thilo Hanemann of Rhodium).
- China institutes a ban on short selling, which is a routine practice in liberal economies

Under the regime what makes you think they can't change the rules to suit them at any given moment? They do it all the time. While in practice this could work out well, they do have a habit of changing their mind all the time. It's like one big continual experiment.

As an example, about ten years ago the government offered citizens over 50 who never had proper company employment (and therefore weren't entitled to a pension) an opportunity to put 30,000 RMB into a special fund they set up. After ten years the fund was activated and the government now pays any individual who joined 2000 RMB a month until the die, which is actually a lot for a pensioner here - there are full time employees who don't earn that much.

Of course that scheme was dissolved after a certain period. Everyone who got in on it is laughing now, the rest are kicking themselves.

I suppose it's not dissimilar to some of the harebrained house buying schemes the UK government keep cooking up (except they're all shit) in that it's equally transient - but there seems to be a lot of changing of policies here and about-face-turns.

I think it would be harsh of me to suggest that China's problems are that it can't pick whether it wants to liberalize or remain Communist,

I'm absolutely convinced they want to remain Communist for the benefits it brings in swift change. If 'liberalising' is used as a stand-in term for making money, they'll have that too.

BryanM likes to talk about interest rates and Marx a bit - the sobering upshot of this is that if you expect continuous economic growth of some percent each year, you're still going to run into the absurd situation of hitting a physical limit - you hit a theoretical limit due to factors like "how many atoms are there in the universe," how much energy is available, and so on.

Yes I agree, which sort of goes back to the economy slowing, warning sirens reaction I mentioned earlier.

Mainly I'm watching the property market. Now the stock market's flunking everyone's running to invest in property, which makes it a terrible time to buy, at least in first line cities. But I'm not too afraid of a bubble, there are some smart rules in place for property buyers and the Beijing boys did a very good job of mediating and avoiding a bubble in 2009.

China most certainly has its problems, be it social or historical.

For a start the place is filthy and has areas that are heavily polluted. It seems to me that they are making all the same mistakes that the west made but on a larger scale.

Take their air pollution for example:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249

Not to mention their birth policies and the effects it has on the overall population. What are the odds of girls to boys again - was it 20 to 1? Hardly a recipe for order.

China is merely trying to reach the level of many western countries and this will prove to be very difficult given the number of people residing their.
The western lifestyle for a very long time has been regarded as being highly unsustainable as it is.

India too has many of the same problems as China but is heavily constricted by its cast system.

Neither would be considered a paradise in many parts.

You need to stop towing the western propaganda line. Some places are dirty, some people are poor, some cities are polluted, there are historical problems owed to the one child policy, and certain cultural traits are totally backwards.

And despite all these things it often makes Great Britain look like a laughable third-world country.

[BryanM]

Obligatory repost: http://youtu.be/RDrfE9I8_hs

That sure is a lot of Chinas in any given speech. Are they really sure he's speaking at a fourth grade level?

[BryanM]

Shit.... talking about control over the supreme court and the absolute control it has over our lives. This is a pretty garbage way to transition it. Not remotely a Scalia fan, glad Citizen's United is going to be gone without a constitutional amendment, feel like crap it's over someone's death.

[Mischief Maker]

Shit.... talking about control over the supreme court and the absolute control it has over our lives.

I'm not being flippant when I call them America's Popes.

That's the reason I'm voting for Hillary if Wasserman succeeds in rigging the game. If it makes you feel any better, it's pretty much the only reason.

[MintyTheCat]

China most certainly has its problems, be it social or historical.

For a start the place is filthy and has areas that are heavily polluted. It seems to me that they are making all the same mistakes that the west made but on a larger scale.

Take their air pollution for example:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249

Not to mention their birth policies and the effects it has on the overall population. What are the odds of girls to boys again - was it 20 to 1? Hardly a recipe for order.

China is merely trying to reach the level of many western countries and this will prove to be very difficult given the number of people residing their.
The western lifestyle for a very long time has been regarded as being highly unsustainable as it is.

India too has many of the same problems as China but is heavily constricted by its cast system.

Neither would be considered a paradise in many parts.

You need to stop towing the western propaganda line. Some places are dirty, some people are poor, some cities are polluted, there are historical problems owed to the one child policy, and certain cultural traits are totally backwards.

And despite all these things it often makes Great Britain look like a laughable third-world country.

Hardly towing the propaganda line: these are facts with regards to their levels of air quality. Did we all imagine the smog issues? I think you are under the influence of propaganda, Skykid.

Whilst I also am not impressed with the UK generally and I can empathise with your frustrations, the thing is: China is a third-world country, Skykid. The UK has its problems but nothing on the scale of China's.

Here's a less biased opinion from a non-western source:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 26957.html

Are you trying to tell us that Green Peace and the World Health Organisation have got it wrong?
Are you trying to say that China has the strictest and most stringent standards that would say make the Germans blush?

There are decades of developments that have been implemented into the policies of many european countries that were in force long before China became industrialised. I think you are suffering from rose tinted judgement here.

[Skykid]

Cheers, that's exactly the kind of bullshit non-article I was talking about. When journalists have no ideas left you can count on Beijing smog feature no.2334221 to fill the quota - and just in time for Jan 2016 no less. First of the year!

Everyone knows about Beijing's air pollution issues, largely because foreign media won't stop talking about it - which doesn't make a lot of sense because they don't live there. Considering it's the country's capital do you think the government is unaware of the problem?

From your article:

"The air pollution is caused by a combination of industrial emissions and coal burning emissions, but the largest source is coal," he says, adding that one third of the coal-burning sector in Beijing and the surrounding region is consumed for power.

While there are no quick fixes Dong says that the government has implemented a number of new policies to improve conditions over the long term, including a new emissions standard which took effect this year.

"Beijing and Hebei province now have stricter emission standards for the coal industry," says Dong. "Emissions facilities will need to be upgraded to cap their emission levels and factories who cannot meet these standards will eventually be phased out."

Beijing has already closed down three of its four coal-fired factories, and the last remaining facility is due to be shut this year.

This year also heralds the implementation a harsher environmental protection law which Dong says will measure infringements by number of days, rather than per incident.

"Previously penalties were calculated per action. So if there's a factory which releases an illegal emission for a single time for over 10 days, according to the old law it would be counted as just one infringement and lead to one penalty. But now the penalty is counted by days. So even if it's only one action, the penalty will be times 10, much bigger. The cost of disobeying will increase."

In spite of continuing crippling bouts of severe smog over the winter, Dong says air quality is slowly improving, pointing to Greenpeace findings that air quality improved by 10 percent in the first nine months of 2015.

^ They seem to be on it. Bleeding hearts highly concerned about the health of Chinese residents need not worry too much, measures are being taken. All Beijing locals thank you westerners for your ongoing concern.

Additionally, do you realise China is a fairly large country at 3.7 million sq miles? Do you think every one of those sq miles of it is shrouded in crippling smog?

England is 50,346 sq miles in comparison, and Germany 137,847 sq miles.

To choice pick some words from your article:

"I lived in the south of China for the first years and wasn't exposed to the smog."

Pollution concentration depends on where you go. It's absolutely true that China's industrial movements in the last three decades were not properly regulated, and this has caused air quality issues up and down the country. Hebei province has the worst of it because of the amount of industrialisation there, but go to Baise and you won't see anything except clear skies.

I was in Shanghai last year for the shmup meet and it was beautifully clear the entire time, and that's fairly far north. Yunnan? Crystal clear and beautiful. Cycling in Guilin? Blue skies all round. Guangzhou, clearer than Hong Kong.

Hardly towing the propaganda line: these are facts with regards to their levels of air quality. Did we all imagine the smog issues? I think you are under the influence of propaganda, Skykid.

What propaganda would that be?

For your amusement (not really, for mine) I took some screengrabs of the air index results this morning for a few comparisons of major cities:

Here's Beijing:

Spoiler

Here's Berlin and surrounding areas:

Spoiler

Do you think this is a bona fide one-off miracle?

Elsewhere London had an AQI rating of 79 in the middle of the night, while Guangzhou is weighing in at 59 and Shanghai at 93 - all in the yellow.

the thing is: China is a third-world country, Skykid.

Hilarious.

Technically it's second world but this is all fairly arbitrary because the country is in a (rapidly) developing state which means you need to take into account poor people and rural peasants who still live in mountains and farmlands.

I assure you, China's poorest provincial capital makes most of London look like the dark ages.

Spoiler

If you want to see why I can update my travelogue thread with recent photos. It's about time I gave it a bump.

[Rob]

A defense of China's legendarily terrible air.

Someone should tell the apparently 1+ million Chinese dying from air pollution every year that it isn't so bad.

A more complete picture:



It does look like there are some green signs in there, until the wind changes direction.

This actually makes the eastern US look good.

[Skykid]

It's not a defense of air pollution, it's a criticism of how foreign media incessantly plays it up making every bonehead who's never visited a sudden expert on the nationwide "issue".

Incidentally you know yellow (moderate) is the general norm in developed countries including Europe, the UK and the US? That's actually a very good AQI report for China. Along with yet another US media report (take your pick) warning people who live hundreds of thousands of miles away of the smog dangers have done a great job of complementing my point.

[Xyga]

China's hygiene and environment issues are actually one of the few topics I would say western media aren't completely bullshiting people about.

And those air pollution readings ? Right now around chunjie is probably one of the times of the year we'll see the lowest figures anyway.

[Skykid]

China's hygiene and environment issues are actually one of the few topics I would say western media aren't completely bullshiting people about.

Of course there are issues that are relevant - the question is how many times are you going to hear the same harping story regurgitated for the sake of filling another newsie's empty columns? It's a developing country and moving forward, these things are to be expected. What's less expected (and more relevant news, yet virtually unreported) is how fast these issues are being improved upon.

If you want to talk fucking hygiene and environment, why not start talking about India? It's practically in biblical times.

The Beijing/Hebei province pollution topic has been clung on to and beaten to death by foreign news media so that foreigners are under the impression the entire country is living in a shroud of darkness, which is total nonsense, and makes all the spectator "commentary" both irritating and worthless.

And those air pollution readings ? Right now around chunjie is probably one of the times of the year we'll see the lowest figures anyway.

CNY ended for the factories that did cease business, which is basically none, on the 12th, and they will have been doubling their efforts over the weekend. This is in addition to a billion or so fireworks being set off in every crevice of the country and the roads being absolutely packed this weekend with people returning to their homes and workplaces to begin again tomorrow. At this point, pollution levels should be at a high point. That's why Beijing being green at 10am and this national result are so impressive:





^ That's an extremely good outlook.

[Xyga]

I meant hygiene as a very broad term actually, what I have in mind relates to water and waste management, heating/ac and insulation or energy efficiency as a whole if you like, add how large urban areas created worse traffic pollution by delaying or screwing road and transportation projects, tied with absurd housing construction planning.
This is part of the pollution problem in Chinese urban areas, although it can vary quite a lot depending on the city and location/climate, it's really apparent when you live here for a while.
Yes we can argue they're still in the middle of their own industrial revolution, but I'm not confident they've started doing the right things, especially if you tell me some municipalites have begun to mimic the absolutely useless policies we see in the western world (planning, fines, etc).
In my eyes they should worry more and do more (well it's just like my opinion man).

The western media issue is rather about the classic sensationalist shit of course, they highlight whatever crap they feel like without explaining the details yes.
What hit me in particlar is that they've decided to make it a thing in recent years while the issue has been there for decades already. Well...

Regarding Beijing, it's a fucking HELL in summer, that hasn't changed, but I've had enough testimonies from friends who lived in Chongqing/Chengdu, Harbin, etc to know it can be even worse elsewhere, and not necessarily when we think of yeah.
Shanghai...I've always suspected it benefits a lot from the sea climate and very frequent breeze chasing the smog away, so it's rarely like Beijing where I've lived several weeks straight without seeing the Sun directly even once (fucking never go there during summer, spring is the best except when a desert dust storm decides to fuck your week-end).

You know I love China, but I won't refrain from saying when there's something really bad about it (I wouldn't before a Chinese because that's very rude, but heh) air pollution in big urban areas can easily reach a point where you can collect a sticky black substance just by rubbing your skin, fucking days straight, or see your laundry stained in black because the rain carries that shit. Black-fucking-rain.
It is that bad, I've had health issues because of it, because I have a particular weakness yes, but it's another of my points: it's not a country for people who can't defend well against this stuff, the air and water are bad period. To people who plan to stay a long period in China I would recommend trying smaller/medium cities in less industrialized areas, life far from the big city madness can be very, very sweet.
(but there are other things in smaller communities that are 'too Chinese' for foreigners lol, but it's how I like that country, maybe because deep down I'm just a peasant :p)

PS: wtf this isn't about Trump anymore. :p

[Skykid]

Yes we can argue they're still in the middle of their own industrial revolution, but I'm not confident they've started doing the right things, especially if you tell me some municipalites have begun to mimic the absolutely useless policies we see in the western world (planning, fines, etc).

It depends on how you look at it. Corruption has been a hell of a thing to beat. In the past levying fines on factories was normally paid away. I know firsthand from a family who recently had their mine closed because they didn't meet the required eco standards (and they're fucked now, they lost a mammoth business). Enforcements are actually occurring, basically.

In my eyes they should worry more and do more (well it's just like my opinion man).

Similarly to the above, I'm actually under the impression they're going as fast as they can. It's an enormous country to manage and there's a lot of doings to undo. It will take time.

The western media issue is rather about the classic sensationalist shit of course, they highlight whatever crap they feel like without explaining the details yes.
What hit me in particlar is that they've decided to make it a thing in recent years while the issue has been there for decades already. Well...

Just something to write and someone to kick.

You know I love China, but I won't refrain from saying when there's something really bad about it (I wouldn't before a Chinese because that's very rude, but heh)

Ah fuck it, I do it all the time. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they're offended. It's just honest conversation in the end.

Regarding pollution, Beijing and Heibei province are considered worst, Chendu and Chongqing can also be terrible. I'm very lucky I don't live anywhere near those places and I feel sorry for those that have to suffer it. I just don't appreciate every man and his dog assuming that the entire country is covered in smog.

I actually went to Shanghai first time about 7 years ago, and it was polluted as fuck. We went to a sky tower observatory and couldn't see shit.

I have no idea what they did since then but I've been twice in the past two years and it was totally clear. Similar to London.

PS: wtf this isn't about Trump anymore. :p

Probably a good thing.

[Xyga]

Yes we can argue they're still in the middle of their own industrial revolution, but I'm not confident they've started doing the right things, especially if you tell me some municipalites have begun to mimic the absolutely useless policies we see in the western world (planning, fines, etc).

It depends on how you look at it. Corruption has been a hell of a thing to beat. In the past levying fines on factories was normally paid away. I know firsthand from a family who recently had their mine closed because they didn't meet the required eco standards (and they're fucked now, they lost a mammoth business). Enforcements are actually occurring, basically.

Holy crap. Well yeah, at the same time I should remember to always expect the unexpectable when it comes to China, always struck me how they are capable of the worst at noon and the best the next morning.

PS: bad luck for Shanghai, there was a nice breeze for several days when I went there and I was granted a striking view from the Pudong buildings a couple of times, even a fantastic sunset from the Jin Mao tower. Too bad my camera was awful.

[Rob]

Incidentally you know yellow (moderate) is the general norm in developed countries including Europe,

That doesn't appear to be the case. For America, it's California and a few moderate pockets (and Fairbanks, where everyone is burning wood to stay warm), but most readings are of low risk areas.

As for China's pollution not being an issue for people thousands of miles away - not true, as it can migrate across the Pacific.

China’s export-related pollution contributed on a daily basis as much as 12%-24% of concentrations of sulfate in the western U.S.

Not that that isn't deserved, however. Americans have a lot of the blood on their hands (and most blissfully ignorant, as is typical).

[Skykid]

I think Japan and Korea tend to complain most about wind driven pollution from north China. But at one point the eastern coast was complaining about nuclear winds from Fukushima, so what goes around and all that.

Yellow flags are moderate and very common in urban areas in developed countries. There are always variances, but London tends to be in the yellow most of every time I did a comparison (which was a lot after I first left).

Yellow flags also obscure green flags because higher pollution levels appear in front, so generally speaking it's been a pretty good day.

[BulletMagnet]

If you'll pardon me for butting in, an open question to any conservative sorts on here: what are your thoughts, in the wake of Scalia's death, on the sudden insistence of many prominent Republicans that "lame duck" presidents not be allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices (if any of them ever previously espoused this position, I'd be interested to read their reasoning as to why), and moreover the promise of multiple GOP senators to utterly ignore any nominations that Obama might make, no matter who they might be? Do you think they'd do the same if McCain or Romney was in the same position? Has any conservative of note publicly come out against the trend? Have any rank-and-file voting blocs?

I seriously want to know if anyone on the opposite side of the aisle can make me feel anything but withering, incredulous contempt for this state of affairs.

[EmperorIng]

lol dude, you're going to have to take a chill pill at some point, because it seems as if you're incapable of feeling anything but "withering, incredulous contempt" for whatever you don't agree with. It strikes me as humorous that you were celebrating Scalia's death before the man was even buried... and you feel entitled to a sense of moral outrage at partisan politics?

My thoughts: it's politics-as-usual, and if it were a Republican president in a Dem-controlled house, it would be the exact same thing. In fact, it was nearly the exact same thing when GWB was president during his early years, where his appointees to courts were almost unilaterally blocked by the Democrat house (in fact, I recall during this time, Republicans sought to weaken the filibuster, which was seen as the remaining weapon on the table for Dems. Democrats tried to remove/weaken the filibuster when the Republicans were in the minority a few years ago! and so on and so on). Am I supposed to be shocked that now that the pendulum swings the other way? If you are, you would be remarkably thin-skinned.

Trump gave the most honest and clear answer: President Obama can do what he wants, but he shouldn't, and if he does the Republicans in the Senate will try to stall. With a Supreme Court justice needing 3/5th of the Senate's consent to be accepted, I do not foresee Obama getting anyone through for the remainder of his term. Perhaps if he was smart, he would pick someone moderate and agreeable, but Obama has shown no such intelligence over the last several years. I do suspect we will get some hand-wringing speech about how bad partisanship is, and that it's all the GOP's fault - the same victim-card bullshit that's made me ashamed of voting for this clown in the past.

[BulletMagnet]

lol dude, you're going to have to take a chill pill at some point, because it seems as if you're incapable of feeling anything but "withering, incredulous contempt" for whatever you don't agree with.

You yourself call it "politics as usual" with an implied eyeroll (frankly, I doubt that the Dems would have the gall to take things this far this fast, especially being so helplessly in thrall to political correctness and all that...heaven knows they lined up to kiss Reagan's dead ass), but apparently that's just "something I disagree with" rather than an institutional cancer being taken to its illogical extreme (and, so far at least, reaping next to no consequences from either the rabidly liberal media or the electorate). Yeah, in the end I guess it's me throwing the "temper tantrum", isn't it?

It strikes me as humorous that you were celebrating Scalia's death before the man was even buried... and you feel entitled to a sense of moral outrage at partisan politics?

The right really does love the term "entitled", don't they...in any event, methinks it's a bit of hyperbole to call any reaction to his death aside from wailing and rending one's garments "celebratory", especially when very few individuals in recent memory have shown as much open "contempt" for such a large swath of the population (and acted upon it, repeatedly and to great effect) as Scalia did. If you think he deserves, or will get, nothing but paeans from that same population I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.

In fact, it was nearly the exact same thing when GWB was president during his early years, where his appointees to courts were almost unilaterally blocked by the Democrat house

I don't know enough about W's court appointments across the board to comment on that, but on the SC level methinks he and his party made out all right with Roberts and Alito...and can you seriously blame anybody for objecting to a brazen joke like Myers? Then again, some folks are still sore about Bork.

Perhaps if he was smart, he would pick someone moderate and agreeable, but Obama has shown no such intelligence over the last several years.

Oh yeah, Obama's never attempted to compromise with his conservative counterparts during his term, and especially never been repeatedly kicked in the teeth even after making concessions that gave his base fits or anything. "Entitled" indeed.

[EmperorIng]

Looks like I touched a sore spot by not agreeing with you.

You yourself call it "politics as usual" with an implied eyeroll (frankly, I doubt that the Dems would have the gall to take things this far this fast, especially being so helplessly in thrall to political correctness and all that...heaven knows they lined up to kiss Reagan's dead ass), but apparently that's just "something I disagree with" rather than an institutional cancer being taken to its illogical extreme (and, so far at least, reaping next to no consequences from either the rabidly liberal media or the electorate). Yeah, in the end I guess it's me throwing the "temper tantrum", isn't it?

Of course living politicians praise dead politicians. It's part of the game. Obama just gave his crocodile-tear speech. A former mayor of Chicago passed away recently, and despite being despised by the heirs of the political machine there were numerous paeans of praise and a highway named after her. The point I made is that the Democrats ABSOLUTELY have the gall to take things as far as Republicans, HAVE taken things so far, because the party leadership of both are remarkably similar. To suggest that both political parties are equally culpable of mismanagement and petty vindictiveness has certainly riled you up, since you are already playing the "political correctness" and "liberals are held to double standards" cards when neither were in my argument. Do you not understand the cyclical nature of politics? (Though I absolutely believe the current administration loves playing with double standards.) I am not sure if the "institutional cancer" you are referring to is the practice of needing 60 senators to approve a SCJ, or the principal of an opposing party rejecting a president's nominee, or yet more saber-rattling from Republicans, none of which strike me particularly as "illogical extremes."

The right really does love the term "entitled", don't they...in any event, methinks it's a bit of hyperbole to call any reaction to his death aside from wailing and rending one's garments "celebratory", especially when very few individuals in recent memory have shown as much open "contempt" for such a large swath of the population (and acted upon it, repeatedly and to great effect) as Scalia did. If you think he deserves, or will get, nothing but paeans from that same population I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken.

Well, you said "I approve of [his death]." I don't know how else I am supposed to take that. I know we all can get caught up in the moment, but I'm not going to claim the moral high-ground with hypocrisy. After a display of tribalism like that, do you really expect people to buy into your shocked outrage at the "other side"s response? Justice Ginsburg certainly felt differently writing her thoughts on the passing of her colleague whom she disagreed with vehemently over the years. I was actually expecting snarky comments and inappropriate jokes from BryanM, given his outspoken politics, which goes to show how absolutely wrong I was to think so little of him.

Did I expect Scalia to get nothing but praise from people? No. Did I agree with all of his decisions? No, but he certainly made many correct judgments over a very long career. Did a highly polarizing political class and their media muckrakers seek to take everything he said as ammunition for their culture wars? Who could deny that? Who could be so absolutely fooled by every click-bait headline into thinking that one man, in a dissenting opinion, was the receptacle of every projected fear they had about the other? It amazes me how much mud and muck was smeared on Scalia, just as I am sure every self-professed liberal is shocked and appalled at whatever awful things people say about Sotomayor or Ginsburg (people who I think are wrong in their legal arguments more often than not). It also amazes me that you conflate his legal opinions with "contempt for a large swath of the population." If that isn't a willful delusion, what else is it supposed to be? Or are you still angry over a court case from 16 years ago? Ha ha, "get over it" indeed!

Oh yeah, Obama's never attempted to compromise with his conservative counterparts during his term, and especially never been repeatedly kicked in the teeth even after making concessions that gave his base fits or anything. "Entitled" indeed.

Obama was almost as fond of touting his willingness to meet with John Boehner and compromise with Republicans as he was of insulting John Boehner and the Republicans for, among many things, "not doing what was right for the country" (ie, agree with Obama). I don't know about you, and for as much of an incompetent RINO Boehner was, if I were in that situation, what on earth makes you think I would ever trust anything that man said to me? Do you really think this is a one-way street? Do you remember when Obama compared the Republicans to the Iranians chanting "Death to America"? LOL.

He is the very definition of "entitled" since anyone who doesn't tow his line is instantly lumped together, generalized, and demonized. If you haven't noticed, this baller approach has totally atrophied the Democratic party nationally, and on a state-by-state basis. I may concede to Obama being an average president (average to Clinton and Bush), but he is a terrible party leader.

[MintyTheCat]

Do they send you to some kind of finishing school, Skykid? One billion all well off? I do not think so. They have a lot of very poor people over there.
Air quality wise: for a start Berlin doesn't have a fraction of the industry and manufacturing that Beijing does. And most certainly China does not have anything like the stringent controls over what is permitted as waste spewed out into the air.

This type of thing does not happen over here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1q3HwB0y0

We have decent standards here and this is one reason we don't have Berlin and indeed Germany in the news over its level of air pollution.
The worst issue air quality wise tends to be due to all the bastard smokers who think cancer is a myth. Honestly, I have never seen such a bunch of dirty bastards who think it is some how good for them.

I said "third-world" as second-world does not exist.

Don't kid yourself, Skykid.

There are millions of people whose lives mean very little to the state in China. You may be on the up side of things sure but that doesn't excuse you from what the system itself represents.

London has its rough spots sure. But poverty is on another level over in China.

Also, you had better carry out tests over a duration to get a good picture. You can hardly tell us all that we have got it wrong wrt to Beijing's level of air pollution. For a start the chinese state closed schools and told people to not leave their homes. I ask you, who is being sensationalist here, Skykid?

China is ranked 90th on the HDI and the UK 14th:

http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries

I agree, things are hard going in the UK and have been for several years but China is not the be all and end all, Skykid. It is a country transitioning from peasantry to industrial to post industrial - let's hope.

The last big country that did that was Russia and we know how that turned out.

[Xyga]

God, Minty you're saying extremely ignorant crap here. You obviously don't know shit about China besides the tabloid-level crap found on the internet.

Also you're distorting what Skykid wrote.

Snap out of your fantasy, it's valid for many countries but China is definitely not a place and people you can jusdge without going there for some time and learn.
It's fucking huge in every possible field, you have no idea.

[MintyTheCat]

God, Minty you're saying extremely ignorant crap here. You obviously don't know shit about China besides the tabloid-level crap found on the internet.

Also you're distorting what Skykid wrote.

Snap out of your fantasy, it's valid for many countries but China is definitely not a place and people you can jusdge without going there for some time and learn.
It's fucking huge in every possible field, you have no idea.

You must be joking. You have said yourself how bad the pollution is:

You know I love China, but I won't refrain from saying when there's something really bad about it (I wouldn't before a Chinese because that's very rude, but heh) air pollution in big urban areas can easily reach a point where you can collect a sticky black substance just by rubbing your skin, fucking days straight, or see your laundry stained in black because the rain carries that shit. Black-fucking-rain.

Sure, it is a big country. I would never step foot in China or India personally.

Let's stick to some facts shall we rather than attempting to cloud your judgement, my judgement, etc.

How many ways can what you wrote be interpreted, Xyga? Is there pollution or is there not pollution? Has the chinese state forbade people from leaving their homes or has it not?

[Xyga]

God, Minty you're saying extremely ignorant crap here. You obviously don't know shit about China besides the tabloid-level crap found on the internet.

Also you're distorting what Skykid wrote.

Snap out of your fantasy, it's valid for many countries but China is definitely not a place and people you can jusdge without going there for some time and learn.
It's fucking huge in every possible field, you have no idea.

You must be joking. You have said yourself how bad the pollution is:

You know I love China, but I won't refrain from saying when there's something really bad about it (I wouldn't before a Chinese because that's very rude, but heh) air pollution in big urban areas can easily reach a point where you can collect a sticky black substance just by rubbing your skin, fucking days straight, or see your laundry stained in black because the rain carries that shit. Black-fucking-rain.

Sure, it is a big country. I would never step foot in China or India personally.

Let's stick to some facts shall we rather than attempting to cloud your judgement, my judgement, etc.

How many ways can what you wrote be interpreted, Xyga? Is there pollution or is there not pollution? Has the chinese state forbade people from leaving their homes or has it not?

Neither I nor SkyKid denied the issue, you're being stupid here really.

Suggesting he's being somewhat brainwashed, and you looking down on the Chinese again comparing their crap to our superior European standards is very much like you.
You probably also missed all the parts about that country's circumstances, their challenges and that it's not like that everywhere all the time.

Is the world like an ensemble of uniform, black and white blocks to you ? You must like Huntington then...