Yep. But it's a doomsday scenario so its appealing to Dally.
China would be far more likely to crack down harshly on its own citizens than strike out at another country (presumably either Taiwan or Japan) and risk getting a damn good kicking by the US. In my opinion anyway.
What Mintball neglected to mention about China - where stereotypically multi-national companies make things on the back of cheap labour - is that their government is deperately trying to keep "growth" going by printing money. China will almost invetitably go bust within a few short years unless something changes. That will be catastrophic for it's people and probably us as well. The government supports a banking system that lends to a myriad of broke manufacturers and the banking system does not recognise potential bad debts. These were estimated a few years ago as a huge 30% of China's GDP (and one suspects are growing). At some point, probably quite soon, the Chinese credit bubble will burst with catastrophic results.
The Chinese government doesn't desperately need to keep growth going, it is expanding rapidly and like all developing countries that are a long way behind the West in terms of development but have access to Western technologies in a globalised market, they will be able to get rapid 'catch up' growth for a while.
China might well hit problems in a few years time not least with inflation getting out of control but China does run large trade surpluses and it has huge reserves of foreign assets particularly US assets, so if China needs to release funds it can gradually sell those assets (not doing it too fast as that would send the dollar plummeting and reduce the value of its own holdings).
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Well, the cost of living in those countries is less than it is here, so multi and trans-national companies can therefore get labour at lower costs. They can pay more to a qualified doctor to sit in a call centre answering the phone than a hospital can , but that's still far less than they'd pay over here.
But all this growth is on the basis of making things – things that are often sold to the 'developed' world; us. Think of just how many things you buy that are made in China, India etc. All this was partly the aim of neo-liberalism: the developed economies were so developed that they could stop producing things, de-indusatrialise and live off service economies (and still grow).
For that to work, we all had to be encouraged to buy, buy, buy and consume in ways that our parents (well, certainly of my generation and older) would not have dreamt of doing. If that's the case, it makes sense that things are cheaper to encourage consumerism – which also means that they are not of the same quality as more expensive goods might have been some years ago. And that's without mentioning how obsolescence is now built into goods. So the washing machine (as I found out this week) does not last anywhere near the time that it once did and you have to shell out for a new one more frequently. So even if you don't buy into the cult of 'aspirationalism' (because consumption is what that is all about), you still have to buy things more than you once would have.
That 'aspirational' thing is funny: we'd once have called it 'keeping up with the Jonses' and laughed at those who did it. Now so many people do it – they want their homes to look like the pages of a design magazine, for instance. And of course, the rise in all those 'lifestyle' magazines and programmes and exhibitions etc etc etc help to maintain and develop that readiness to consume – and, of course, provide jobs.
Altogether, really quite depressing.
If only it were so simplistic - you ignore the desire of everyone to reduce the time it takes to do mundane tasks - this is theme that runs through a number of your arguments.
Why do people use supermarkets - because they don't want to spend hours going from shop to shop to conclude an unpleasant basic function. Why do people buy ready meals? because there are better things to do than cook - why would you want an hour cooking if you don't need to? etc.
AT THE RIPPINGHAM GALLERY .................................................................... ART PROFILE ................................................................... On Twitter ................................................................... On Facebook ...................................................................
And of course, the rise in all those 'lifestyle' magazines and programmes and exhibitions etc etc etc help to maintain and develop that readiness to consume – and, of course, provide jobs.
Altogether, really quite depressing.
Don't knock it, please.
I'm depending on several of those magazines to keep up the promotional work
If only it were so simplistic - you ignore the desire of everyone to reduce the time it takes to do mundane tasks - this is theme that runs through a number of your arguments.
Why do people use supermarkets - because they don't want to spend hours going from shop to shop to conclude an unpleasant basic function. Why do people buy ready meals? because there are better things to do than cook - why would you want an hour cooking if you don't need to? etc.
Perhaps this is driving consumerism?
A big problem in our society is enhanced mobility eg through car usage. This allows longer jounrney's to work, frequent school runs, leisure trips, etc. All of these create an illusion of freedom but the down-side is time poverty, feeling rushed, feeling stressed. If people were to analyse their stressed and time pressured lives they would realise that it comes down to their own choosing. The extreme example is the neurotic upper middle-class non-working housewife who is always stressed even if she only has 2 kids to cope with and a nanny! Their stress comes from running round taking the kids to school, going the gym, going for coffee, going for lunch, going shopping, taking kids to activity after activity. None of which, with the exception of a bit of occassional shopping, is in any way necessary. If they made the kids walk / get the bus, play out and did some housework they'd have more time and be happier.
Why do people use supermarkets - because they don't want to spend hours going from shop to shop to conclude an unpleasant basic function...
What is unpleasant about real shopping for food, with proper human interaction?
We have the peculiarity of people spending entire days wandering around dreadful shopping malls with every shop belching music with a heavy beat to get your heart rate going so that you'll spend more. It's a new form of religion. Yet with the dreadful, dehumanising, tin-box approach of supermarkets, the aim is to get people in and out as quickly as possible.
So we're all to hate shopping for food – because after all, food isn't really important and no normal person really likes it or likes cooking – and we're to spend far more time in glossy malls buying things and more things and more things again to boost the economy.
Sal Paradise wrote:
... Why do people buy ready meals? because there are better things to do than cook - why would you want an hour cooking if you don't need to? etc.
Well I do – and I work full time too.
My reasons? Because I find cooking enjoyable, challenging, relaxing and many other things. And because I can produce far better end products than any ready meal would provide, and without any crap and chemicals and other additives in it.
So in other words, because I also care about the fuel that I put into my body – just as I actually enjoy food.
And "better things to do than cook"? Like what? Watch EastEnders?
Fortunately, the rise in obesity has absolutely no connection whatsoever with attitudes such as the one you've outlined here. Oh dearie me no.
A big problem in our society is enhanced mobility eg through car usage. This allows longer jounrney's to work, frequent school runs, leisure trips, etc. All of these create an illusion of freedom but the down-side is time poverty, feeling rushed, feeling stressed. If people were to analyse their stressed and time pressured lives they would realise that it comes down to their own choosing. The extreme example is the neurotic upper middle-class non-working housewife who is always stressed even if she only has 2 kids to cope with and a nanny! Their stress comes from running round taking the kids to school, going the gym, going for coffee, going for lunch, going shopping, taking kids to activity after activity. None of which, with the exception of a bit of occassional shopping, is in any way necessary. If they made the kids walk / get the bus, play out and did some housework they'd have more time and be happier.
what a load of tripe !
stress is : not being able pay the bills not being able to support your family having to live with terminal illness or disability within the family unit being unemployed and feeling useless feeling alone in times of need
etc etc
having one of those things is bad enough - can you imagine what's it's like to have several, if not ALL these problems to face ?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...