NBA: Bathroom bill bad, Chinese commies good

[CID1990]

The Week is knocking it out of the park with a series of essays on this

https://theweek.com/articles/870388/chi ... capitalism

[Ivytalk]

The Week is knocking it out of the park with a series of essays on this

https://theweek.com/articles/870388/chi ... capitalism

It’s an Orwellian, Bleak House view of how capitalism can be abused. While Walther is quick to say that there’s no necessary correlation between capitalism and human freedom, he neglects the obverse: that there is no possibility of such freedom under a Chinese-style command economy. There’s also an undercurrent of hostility to mindless consumerism, which I understand, but that theme is not new. And his effort in the last line of the piece to equate the Chinese model with ours is a stretch.

In all the handwringing about “how do we contain/defeat/survive” the Chinese threat, be it technological or political or economic, it seems that one obvious point has been underplayed: there are 1.4 billion of Them, and maybe 330 million of Us. Regardless of birth rate, that’s a steep hill to climb.

[Pwns]

It’s an Orwellian, Bleak House view of how capitalism can be abused. While Walther is quick to say that there’s no necessary correlation between capitalism and human freedom, he neglects the obverse: that there is no possibility of such freedom under a Chinese-style command economy. There’s also an undercurrent of hostility to mindless consumerism, which I understand, but that theme is not new. And his effort in the last line of the piece to equate the Chinese model with ours is a stretch.

In all the handwringing about “how do we contain/defeat/survive” the Chinese threat, be it technological or political or economic, it seems that one obvious point has been underplayed: there are 1.4 billion of Them, and maybe 330 million of Us. Regardless of birth rate, that’s a steep hill to climb.

That article seems to be implying that China has the economic machine it does because it's willing to put its people in a sausage grinder in a way that free countries aren't.

Yet this is still a country that does not have a major automaker, a major pharma company, or a major Tech company while their close neighbors Japan and South Korea can at least make some of those claims. China is only a powerhouse market rather than Japan or South Korea is because China has a middle class that's bigger than both of those countries combined.

I don't know where he comes off saying "It is more than possible to imagine an authoritarian capitalist version of the United States..." either. The very basic liberty of criticizing the government without government reprisal is something everyone from the most die-hard Trump apologist to the Bernie bros agree with. When you've got Ted Crúz and Ocasio-Cortez complaining about the same thing, you know you've found a shared American value.

[SDHornet]

Heard on sports radio that all media has been cut off for the NBA games in China.

Not too woke now are we:

[css75]

NBA is just getting in deeper.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

The Week is knocking it out of the park with a series of essays on this

https://theweek.com/articles/870388/chi ... capitalism

It’s an Orwellian, Bleak House view of how capitalism can be abused. While Walther is quick to say that there’s no necessary correlation between capitalism and human freedom, he neglects the obverse: that there is no possibility of such freedom under a Chinese-style command economy. There’s also an undercurrent of hostility to mindless consumerism, which I understand, but that theme is not new. And his effort in the last line of the piece to equate the Chinese model with ours is a stretch.

In all the handwringing about “how do we contain/defeat/survive” the Chinese threat, be it technological or political or economic, it seems that one obvious point has been underplayed: there are 1.4 billion of Them, and maybe 330 million of Us. Regardless of birth rate, that’s a steep hill to climb.

He does ignore some fundamental differences

But I don’t think he’s being a crackpot here - and this is where I’ll give klam and the other apologists for the command economy model some credit - our own system CAN be exploited to the point where we fall in line with China. But it isn’t the most likely outcome and we do have numerous protections in place to prevent it.

(TBH I’d like to see a 1st Amendment challenge to the venues throwing out people holding or wearing Hông Kong protest items.... then let the NBA explain to their Chinese handlers why they can’t comply)

I linked this article because of the 2-3 The Week has published, this was the most interesting one. Did you follow the link for “China Respecter Man”?

[CID1990]

It’s an Orwellian, Bleak House view of how capitalism can be abused. While Walther is quick to say that there’s no necessary correlation between capitalism and human freedom, he neglects the obverse: that there is no possibility of such freedom under a Chinese-style command economy. There’s also an undercurrent of hostility to mindless consumerism, which I understand, but that theme is not new. And his effort in the last line of the piece to equate the Chinese model with ours is a stretch.

In all the handwringing about “how do we contain/defeat/survive” the Chinese threat, be it technological or political or economic, it seems that one obvious point has been underplayed: there are 1.4 billion of Them, and maybe 330 million of Us. Regardless of birth rate, that’s a steep hill to climb.

That article seems to be implying that China has the economic machine it does because it's willing to put its people in a sausage grinder in a way that free countries aren't.

Yet this is still a country that does not have a major automaker, a major pharma company, or a major Tech company while their close neighbors Japan and South Korea can at least make some of those claims. China is only a powerhouse market rather than Japan or South Korea is because China has a middle class that's bigger than both of those countries combined.

I don't know where he comes off saying "It is more than possible to imagine an authoritarian capitalist version of the United States..." either. The very basic liberty of criticizing the government without government reprisal is something everyone from the most die-hard Trump apologist to the Bernie bros agree with. When you've got Ted Crúz and Ocasio-Cortez complaining about the same thing, you know you've found a shared American value.

When Comcast bottlenecks your bandwidth they are doing it from a profit motive

But fast forward and get China as a significant shareholder. Majority control of Comcast comes ready made with a plurality of Dem and GOP congresscritters in your pocket

Now Comcast, with their algorithms to figure out how to advertise to you, gets marching orders to tune that AI to your online posts critical of the impending Chinese shutdown of the South China Sea.

OR, even easier, Comcast just puts CS.com behind a firewall with cooperation from the other Chinese vassal, Google.

Later, after two or three more populist Presidents have their way with SCOTUS (and perhaps stack it out to 20-25 justices), the high court rules that the internet is not a public utility, Comcast owns the infrastructure and is a private service provider, AND you clicked agree to their terms of service.....

^^^^ this is all a bit fanciful and there are many other possibilities .... personally I think China will kill us with their vassal states and proxies rather than in a direct assault on our system

[Ivytalk]

It’s an Orwellian, Bleak House view of how capitalism can be abused. While Walther is quick to say that there’s no necessary correlation between capitalism and human freedom, he neglects the obverse: that there is no possibility of such freedom under a Chinese-style command economy. There’s also an undercurrent of hostility to mindless consumerism, which I understand, but that theme is not new. And his effort in the last line of the piece to equate the Chinese model with ours is a stretch.

In all the handwringing about “how do we contain/defeat/survive” the Chinese threat, be it technological or political or economic, it seems that one obvious point has been underplayed: there are 1.4 billion of Them, and maybe 330 million of Us. Regardless of birth rate, that’s a steep hill to climb.

He does ignore some fundamental differences

But I don’t think he’s being a crackpot here - and this is where I’ll give klam and the other apologists for the command economy model some credit - our own system CAN be exploited to the point where we fall in line with China. But it isn’t the most likely outcome and we do have numerous protections in place to prevent it.

(TBH I’d like to see a 1st Amendment challenge to the venues throwing out people holding or wearing Hông Kong protest items.... then let the NBA explain to their Chinese handlers why they can’t comply)

I linked this article because of the 2-3 The Week has published, this was the most interesting one. Did you follow the link for “China Respecter Man”?

No, but I’ll go back in and click on it. I’d also like to see a First Amendment challenge, and a ruling by Justice Gorsuch sticking it up China’s ass.

[Ivytalk]

It’s an Orwellian, Bleak House view of how capitalism can be abused. While Walther is quick to say that there’s no necessary correlation between capitalism and human freedom, he neglects the obverse: that there is no possibility of such freedom under a Chinese-style command economy. There’s also an undercurrent of hostility to mindless consumerism, which I understand, but that theme is not new. And his effort in the last line of the piece to equate the Chinese model with ours is a stretch.

In all the handwringing about “how do we contain/defeat/survive” the Chinese threat, be it technological or political or economic, it seems that one obvious point has been underplayed: there are 1.4 billion of Them, and maybe 330 million of Us. Regardless of birth rate, that’s a steep hill to climb.

He does ignore some fundamental differences

But I don’t think he’s being a crackpot here - and this is where I’ll give klam and the other apologists for the command economy model some credit - our own system CAN be exploited to the point where we fall in line with China. But it isn’t the most likely outcome and we do have numerous protections in place to prevent it.

(TBH I’d like to see a 1st Amendment challenge to the venues throwing out people holding or wearing Hông Kong protest items.... then let the NBA explain to their Chinese handlers why they can’t comply)

I linked this article because of the 2-3 The Week has published, this was the most interesting one. Did you follow the link for “China Respecter Man”?

I just read “China Respecter Man” and the embedded “small-c constitution “ piece. There is a sort of consistency, and relentless pessimism, to Walther’s historical determinism.

[CID1990]

He does ignore some fundamental differences

But I don’t think he’s being a crackpot here - and this is where I’ll give klam and the other apologists for the command economy model some credit - our own system CAN be exploited to the point where we fall in line with China. But it isn’t the most likely outcome and we do have numerous protections in place to prevent it.

(TBH I’d like to see a 1st Amendment challenge to the venues throwing out people holding or wearing Hông Kong protest items.... then let the NBA explain to their Chinese handlers why they can’t comply)

I linked this article because of the 2-3 The Week has published, this was the most interesting one. Did you follow the link for “China Respecter Man”?

I just read “China Respecter Man” and the embedded “small-c constitution “ piece. There is a sort of consistency, and relentless pessimism, to Walther’s historical determinism.

Maybe that’s why he appeals to me - I’m very pessimistic on China

and our ability to resist them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

I just read “China Respecter Man” and the embedded “small-c constitution “ piece. There is a sort of consistency, and relentless pessimism, to Walther’s historical determinism.

Maybe that’s why he appeals to me - I’m very pessimistic on China

and our ability to resist them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember about 40 years ago when Ezra Vogel and others were trumpeting the economic triumph of Japan and how to cope with it

How times have changed

I feel sorry for Japan now

Once dynamic, now calcified

[kalm]

That article seems to be implying that China has the economic machine it does because it's willing to put its people in a sausage grinder in a way that free countries aren't.

Yet this is still a country that does not have a major automaker, a major pharma company, or a major Tech company while their close neighbors Japan and South Korea can at least make some of those claims. China is only a powerhouse market rather than Japan or South Korea is because China has a middle class that's bigger than both of those countries combined.

I don't know where he comes off saying "It is more than possible to imagine an authoritarian capitalist version of the United States..." either. The very basic liberty of criticizing the government without government reprisal is something everyone from the most die-hard Trump apologist to the Bernie bros agree with. When you've got Ted Crúz and Ocasio-Cortez complaining about the same thing, you know you've found a shared American value.

When Comcast bottlenecks your bandwidth they are doing it from a profit motive

But fast forward and get China as a significant shareholder. Majority control of Comcast comes ready made with a plurality of Dem and GOP congresscritters in your pocket

Now Comcast, with their algorithms to figure out how to advertise to you, gets marching orders to tune that AI to your online posts critical of the impending Chinese shutdown of the South China Sea.

OR, even easier, Comcast just puts CS.com behind a firewall with cooperation from the other Chinese vassal, Google.

Later, after two or three more populist Presidents have their way with SCOTUS (and perhaps stack it out to 20-25 justices), the high court rules that the internet is not a public utility, Comcast owns the infrastructure and is a private service provider, AND you clicked agree to their terms of service.....

^^^^ this is all a bit fanciful and there are many other possibilities .... personally I think China will kill us with their vassal states and proxies rather than in a direct assault on our system

Populists would appoint judges that rule in favor of large monopolies?

[CID1990]

When Comcast bottlenecks your bandwidth they are doing it from a profit motive

But fast forward and get China as a significant shareholder. Majority control of Comcast comes ready made with a plurality of Dem and GOP congresscritters in your pocket

Now Comcast, with their algorithms to figure out how to advertise to you, gets marching orders to tune that AI to your online posts critical of the impending Chinese shutdown of the South China Sea.

OR, even easier, Comcast just puts CS.com behind a firewall with cooperation from the other Chinese vassal, Google.

Later, after two or three more populist Presidents have their way with SCOTUS (and perhaps stack it out to 20-25 justices), the high court rules that the internet is not a public utility, Comcast owns the infrastructure and is a private service provider, AND you clicked agree to their terms of service.....

^^^^ this is all a bit fanciful and there are many other possibilities .... personally I think China will kill us with their vassal states and proxies rather than in a direct assault on our system

Populists would appoint judges that rule in favor of large monopolies?

I dunno klam

Can we do oppo research on justices more easily when there are a few of them, or 50?

And of course SCOTUS justices never go against the dogma of those who appointed them, amirite?