原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表 
This trade balance have not change from the beginning until
a) They introduce opium
b) The government lose a war and need to pay for it
And the whole problem of as of now (2007), China does not have a stable economy for investors to play around. Remember the financial crisis.
(And seriously, if China don't control its own currency and
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表
Japanese also left over
a) factory
b) skills
The "enemy" we are facing is no in a good shape. How many plane do we really need? (Many of those powerful' country is bomb to ashes and is in a recovery phase.)
Remember, they had McArthur to aid them back then, we don't.
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表
Talk about strategy today is strange. Converntional fighting simply does not work between powerful countries. If China fight a war with Japan, we will be talking about a nuclear winter very soon. (Unlike Taiwan, Japanese has assets across the globe to make an influence, their assets are also owned across the globe to magnify the influence.) We will need CAVES, not island.
Nope, most wars we are talking about today (if feasible) are regional wars for natural resources. And in fact, nuclear war will be very unlikely even if Japan invaded China again. (Though the fundies in US? Well ... now I'm worrying if McCain gets up there)
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表
In DNA, when a Yellow and a White have a child, neither White or Yellow gene will disappear. The way to make the gene pool shift (to Yellow) is to have a natural selection against Whites. Otherwise you can keep breeding for thousands of years and there will be the same portion of the population that is White.
With no natural selection, a population with 90 Yellow and 10 White will remain 90%Yellow and 10% White. The Yellow will not be able to dilute the White as the population grow or shrink. Work out the math and you should see what I mean.
From how most people look simliar today in China, you can already know what has happen in the past.
That's exactly what I MEAN. There's no definite definition for "Hans" because they've been mixing with others so much due to ease of transportation in China.
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表
If you let people act freely, the price of rice will skyrocket (in fact it has in black market), farmer will farm more food item, merchant can purchase some from our neighbour (or smuggle as is used in those time in black market)
How do you believe the population get to so large in the first place?
I have much more confidence in Chinese picking wisely and against the priest when they are allow to act freely.
Dude, there's a limit of natural resources and maximum possible production on the economical presumptions.
And considering how much China invested on foreign going students and how many of them became missioners and in term screwed science in their own country, NO, I'm pretty in distrust in the central government on this issue - they're over confident with the effects.
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表
Looking at history, when did Guangdong begin to prosper? When we begin to trade with foreigner. (At Gunagzhou, as written in the museum in Gunagzhou)
If Gaungzhou "opened" to let priests give them bibles in exchange of land (in fact it happened in Qing Dynasty), then, well, see? NO.
We "opened" door by Qing dynasty to foreigners to "invest" completely freely. Now remember, boxers don't rebell because they're so bored.
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表
When people speak of leting go, it mean capitalistic economy. Where MOST but not ALL of the economy is controlled by private sector.
Why is there a famine in China under communist? Because the government command everyone to grow cotton instead of food item. Because the governemnt command everyone to 'try' refining their tools into steel in their backyard.
In my village in particular, because the government commanded everyone to use their techique and damage the soil (When everyone in the village know the techique will not work).
Dude, you're mixing state ownership with superstitious government officials and throwing science into the gabbish bin.
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表
Looking at staistics, country who open trade and get foreign development investment do get improvement in health and education. It is simply a fact. The African countries that do not get an improvement are exactly those that do not open up.
As Adam Smith would say, people get their meat from the butcher not because the butcher is merciful. It is because mutually beneficial to do so. Foreign investor gain a benefit from educating their workers on health, skills (including science), etc.
If US owned a huge part of China (which is possible by going in backdoor, through various different country, and mayby they already has), they will pay for Chinese education not because they love us, but because it benefit them too.
A hell lot of the African countries has literally everything owned by Chinese, European and US and THEY ARE THE SOURCES to keep their government closed to their own people by funding corrupting government. And you called that "not opened up to foreigners". I mean, dude, WAKE UP. They've been "opening" since colonial times and all they achieved were having their very people shipped to Europe as slaves with missioners selling them. Look at Indonesia which serves as the major factory yet workers are paid literally nothing, forever. The list goes on.
And it's the same deal. If US enterprises which are predorminantly right (fundie) leaning has owned much of China there'll be a price tag on every Chinese's life and freedom. And no, rather than educating the Chinese they'll let their own unemployed useless people come and rule over.
Again, remember how most people actually SUFFERED in Qing dynasty and the early National government.
Rather, enforcing Chinese ownage of firms and requires foreign coorporations to actually deal with the local people on fair, local terms which in turn requires them to give out more technology and mutual cooperation in exchange.
In the end it is a bitter choice when the local people cannot compete with foreign corporations which in turn due to destruction of the country by wars engineered solely to colonize, rob resources and spread religion.
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表
Now back to HK. The place is highly commerce-literate. Karl Marx would have said the mode of production dictate the culture of its people. HK mode of production IS commerce.
I really feel sorry to say about this. But I don't really support Karl Marx's theory because if HK's culture does reflect its mode of production, then HK must be living on selling their country and political benefits to the US Republicans. Considering how the so-called top schools educated the kids, I mean, seriously.
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表
If HK try on natural science research, its success is limited. A world class research project requires more money than a single city's budget. Even Bristish government itself is unable to fund a project on its own and relies on EU to cover the bills.
WRONG. If our colonial left behind government has the least amount of responsibility to abandon Noah's Ark (which is 800 million government money) and give that to Science, it can fund at most 100 basic plasma physics research projects.
And that's just ONE government transaction (that violates separation of church and state and has NOTHING to do with commerce) alone.
原帖由 dye 於 2008-4-13 15:16 發表
For China, it would ask the question of why HK among many other city? For its above average living cost? (When a research cost 5k, in HK, it cost 13k?) For its lack of water resources? (How do you build a fresh water facility if the city is already buying water from GuangDong?) Lack of space? (If you can sell the piece of land for billion, you are going to make a experimental farm on it?) Think about launching a rocket in HK..umm.
But HK do have research, little ones like surgical technique, medical treatment (the hospital is there anyway) Cell phone technology (Beta tester is everywhere here!), etc..
Because HK has the so called best international connections with other countries and thus serves a bridge between the Chinese academia and foreign academia. I'm sorry, but you might have left the academia so long not to notice that.
And seriously, what are you selling if you don't have anything to produce?
And NO, no one lauches any rockets nor planes in Boston yet aerodynamics and rocket science is quite a subject there
No one fights war there too. Yet Robotic warfare research is huge in Boston University.
They don't do nuclear tests and laser bombardment experiments there as well, yet it's a big thing in MIT
And land in Boston, SF California and Chicago are VERY expensive.
Want more of this? |
2008/4/16 20:33
| 
[/url]