[Washington Insider] Will the demonstrations in Hong Kong come to be seen as the end of a 30-year period, beginning with the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, of the American-Chinese economic engagement and entanglement christened "Chimerica" by historian Niall Ferguson?
Quite possibly, and without regard to what happens in Hong Kong. President Trump’s on-and-off tariff threats to China have shown his willingness to upend U.S.-China economic ties. Unlike his predecessors, he regards imports from China as harmful. In his view, they provide cheap clothes and toys to American consumers, but they also have destroyed more American manufacturing jobs than expected.
In any case, China's economic growth has been flagging, and its work force has essentially stopped growing. Post-Tiananmen annual growth, unparalleled in history, ranged from 8% to 14% from 1991 to 2013, but has tailed off, probably below the official 6% level.
Thanks to China’s longtime one-child policy, its working-age population has been declining, down 3% since 2011. For years, one big question about China was whether it would get old before it got rich. The answer seems to be that it has gotten old about halfway up the path. Poverty is way down, but incomes significantly lag those in North America, Western Europe and East Asia, including Taiwan and Hong Kong. Meanwhile, just as the United States once lost low-skill manufacturing jobs, so China is losing them now.
Building up China's economic and military might and destroying our manufacturing class will be seen by future historians as one of many insanely self-destructive policies foisted on this country by its foolish political class.
Right up there with importing 20 million semi-literate illegal entrants from Mexico and Central America.
You'd have to be of a certain age to recognize your graphic, B.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
08/23/2019 11:57 Comments ||
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
Our Country has lost, stupidly, Trillions of Dollars with China over many years. They have stolen our Intellectual Property at a rate of Hundreds of Billions of Dollars a year, & they want to continue. I won’t let that happen! We don’t need China and, frankly, would be far....
....better off without them. The vast amounts of money made and stolen by China from the United States, year after year, for decades, will and must STOP. Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing..
....your companies HOME and making your products in the USA. I will be responding to China’s Tariffs this afternoon. This is a GREAT opportunity for the United States. Also, I am ordering all carriers, including Fed Ex, Amazon, UPS and the Post Office, to SEARCH FOR & REFUSE,....
....all deliveries of Fentanyl from China (or anywhere else!). Fentanyl kills 100,000 Americans a year. President Xi said this would stop - it didn’t. Our Economy, because of our gains in the last 2 1/2 years, is MUCH larger than that of China. We will keep it that way!
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/23/2019 13:40 Comments ||
The moral of the story is: When you enable evil, it does not reform. It only gets more powerful and more dangerous.
We should have been dealing with the Chinese the same way we did with the USSR. If we had they might have collapsed by now the same way the USSR did. Trump gave them more of a chance than I would have but he is not naive and stupid the way jimmuh carter was. Nor is he as greedy and unscrupulous as Henry Kissinger. I hope he's not too late.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
08/23/2019 14:11 Comments ||
Ref #5: Parking in the back row, near the ditch. Nobody walks past your car for popcorn or soft drinks.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
08/23/2019 18:15 Comments ||
President Trump on Friday announced plans to increase tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese goods in a sweeping response to duties announced by Beijing earlier in the day.
Trump tweeted that a 10 percent tariff on $300 billion in Chinese goods set to go into effect on Sept. 1 would increase to 15 percent, and that an additional $250 billion being tariffed at 25 percent will be hit with a 30 percent tariff starting Oct. 1.
"China should not have put new Tariffs on 75 BILLION DOLLARS of United States product (politically motivated!)" Trump tweeted.
We should have been dealing with the Chinese the same way we did with the USSR.
Unfortunately, America's policy towards China has always been driven by dreams of what its population could be -- an unparalleled mass of customers, an unparalleled source of new converts. It's never been about what the Chinese want or need, but always about what influential Americans can get out of it.
(For example, for the Clinton's, it was about trading US defense secrets for cash.)
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/23/2019 19:37 Comments ||
That's mostly a tax on inflation - a tax on the money the government printed. I suggest making dividends tax-free - they have already been taxed as income to the corporation, why tax them again as income to the corporation owners?
[Breitbart] Renowned Yale computer scientist David Gelernter claims that he is abandoning Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Gelernter, who formerly served as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, published a column earlier this year detailing his move away from evolutionary theory. The column, which was titled "Giving Up Darwin," provides Gelernter’s arguments against Darwinism.
Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from old ones in a constantly branching, spreading tree of life. Those brave new Cambrian creatures must therefore have had Precambrian predecessors, similar but not quite as fancy and sophisticated. They could not have all blown out suddenly, like a bunch of geysers. Each must have had a closely related predecessor, which must have had its own predecessors: Darwinian evolution is gradual, step-by-step. All those predecessors must have come together, further back, into a series of branches leading down to the (long ago) trunk.
But those predecessors of the Cambrian creatures are missing. Darwin himself was disturbed by their absence from the fossil record. He believed they would turn up eventually. Some of his contemporaries (such as the eminent Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz) held that the fossil record was clear enough already, and showed that Darwin’s theory was wrong. Perhaps only a few sites had been searched for fossils, but they had been searched straight down. The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting‐and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted.
A group of scientists, including Gelernter and Meyer, sat down to discuss evolution this summer in a conversation that was hosted by Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.
@...They could not have all blown out suddenly...@
actually, the normative view is that in about a 10 million year period early in the Cambrian (about 500M years ago) there was such a 'blow up' and that's why it is called the Cambrian Explosion
there are no accepted causal theories of why this happened and for this to have happened the rate of successful mutation would have to have been at least 4 orders of magnitude greater than anything measured -- those problems make the 'explosion' a tough one to accept for many
Posted by: lord garth ||
08/23/2019 3:50 Comments ||
He's got a point. There is no trace of Trump in Republican fossils, for example. But, sometimes there is random skip-a-step evolution, when the 'gamma ray' hits a cell harder than normal. I guess. Evolution never took Algebra I and tried to get a passing grade. It probably never will.
In the last decade the availability of cheap genetic mapping has caused a reshuffling of the Tree of Life™. Things that looked alike tended to have far different ancestors ( Evolution in Action, eh?) .... so fossil evidence? :Meh:
Saying your "abandoning Darwin" makes as much sense as saying you're "abandoning Democritus" and his model of atoms -- there's been a hell of a lot of other work since then, and that phrasing just makes you sound ignorant. Frankly, coming from an over-inflated Ivy Leaguer, it's what I expect.
It's not just finches and fossils.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/23/2019 19:43 Comments ||
When someone, like my elder Brother, says "I don't believe in Evolution!" then my response is "Define what you mean by that statement ... then we'll talk."
[Forbes] British Royal couple Prince Harry and Princess Meghan Markle triggered widespread outrage recently after lecturing the world about climate change while flying around the world in private jets.
...But was the couple’s ostentatious display of climate hypocrisy really accidental? After all, celebrities have been hypocritically moralizing about climate change and other environmental issues for decades. And, now, a growing number of celebrities are getting into the act.
...A simpler explanation for the hypocrisy of celebrities who moralize about climate change is that it is a way of flaunting their special status.
Hypocrisy is the ultimate power move. It is a way of demonstrating that one plays by a different set of rules from the ones adhered to by common people. Hypocrisy demonstrates how unaccountable one is to conventional morality.
Such displays work because, unlike wealth, status is inherently subjective. The more of it you are perceived to have, the more of it you actually have.
Also notice who's not going to Balmoral to see the Queen.
Princess Yacht-girl not managed to make many friends with royals. Perhaps she can chat to Andrew again as they likely bumped into each other in the past.
[American Thinker] This spring, visiting professor Ryszard Legutko was prevented from speaking at Vermont's prestigious Middlebury College due to strident opposition by extremist and intolerant students. This was the second such embarrassment for the college: writer Charles Murray and a Middlebury professor were insulted and assaulted there in 2016.
Professor Legutko recently related his perspective on the experience, revealing that the college not only caved to the disruptive and disrespectful students, but legitimized their conduct! Further, the students have set out to proscribe future discourse that might again ignite their sociopathic anarchy.
Last year, our nation's children walked out of high schools to complain about school shootings. Encouraged by teachers and principals, these students proclaimed that they would finally end school violence by effecting changes to national gun laws. Many have praised these optimistic youths; others have condemned them. Both approaches are wrong.
Addressing the rebellion of America's youth in the 1960s, writer Wendell Berry remarked that "this generation is as subject as any other to intelligent scrutiny and judgment, and as deserving of honest criticism. It has received much approbation and condemnation, very little criticism" ("Discipline and Hope," 1970). Mr. Berry argued that the '60s youths correctly criticized their parents' world but that without guidance, they eventually embraced those same values in new forms. Thus, the Flower Children took root in Silicon Valley, where they now grow bald while the military complex and industrial waste flourish.
on Monday boycott classes to protest racism
on Tuesday boycott classes to protest global warming
on Wednesday boycott classes to protest corporate profits
on Thursday boycott classes to protest animal abuse
on Friday boycott classes to protest voting ID laws
Posted by: lord garth ||
08/23/2019 3:19 Comments ||
On saturday attend the 'how to protest' workshop.
On sunday see the state appointed shrink.
Just a note to the kiddies, the authorities sent the PLA in to finish them off. Keep it up. We don't have a PLA, but once the leash breaks, we have a militia. If history says anything, they'll be as concerned about 'due process' as you are.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.