GoodEye8 @ GoodEye8 @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

1,165

Joined

2 yr. ago

Of course you're going to cherry pick the one sentence that fits your narrative. 🤡

You said is declining, article is clear its not actually declining. "YoU'rE cHeRrY pIcKiNg"

Bye.

With the amount of false information, mental gymnastics, name calling and actual idiocracy I'm genuinely happy get be rid of you. France is fine, China sucks, fuck off.

China and India started in roughly the same spot after WW2, and there’s an obvious reason why they developed very differently. India develops exactly the same way every capitalist country has developed. It’s quite obvious that the same things hasn’t been happening in India. The fact that you call yourself a socialist and don’t understand these things really says volumes.

Enlighten me.

Last I checked there’s plenty of foreign investment in capitalist countries like India. Yet, they’re developing in a completely different way.

Are they really? In what way?

https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/what-do-about-eus-relative-decline-2024-04-22/ https://www.attali.com/en/society/virtues-of-work/ https://qery.no/social-and-material-deprivation-in-europe-2023/ https://www.ipsos.com/en/29-europeans-say-they-are-currently-precarious-financial-situation https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/01/12/nearly-half-of-europeans-say-their-standards-of-living-have-already-declined-as-crises-mou

For fuck sake, the title of the first article literally says relative decline as in the standard of living isn't actually declining, and if you read the article it clearly states the household income isn't increasing as fast as it was before.

Considering how many times you've linked an article and it's complete BS I'm just not going to read any more of your articles. You link an article, find a suitable quote from the article that actually matches what you're claiming and then I'll bother to open the article, because if you can't be bothered neither can I.

Absolutely hilarious how you continue to ignore where China started.

You’re comparing a country that was a developed country more than 50 years ago to a country that has been a developing country in the last 50 years. No shit one of them is going to show a lot of progress. It’s like comparing the progress a person does in the first 18 years of the life to the progress of someone from the age of 30 to 48.

Explain to us why we don’t see the same thing happening in India for example.

There's a great article in HBR showing how India could become a significant global player by 2050 and what are the barriers that are preventing it. The same thing happening in India could be just a matter of time.

Explain why the standard of living in China is improving more rapidly anywhere or any time in history.

Foreign investment? Notice how the trend is almost identical with the household income you pointed at before

Meanwhile, also explain why the standard of living in Europe is declining.

Source?

It found that Chinese median wealth per adult, at $26,752, now outstrips Europe, where the average adult has a wealth of $26,690. The European figure takes into account the whole of the continent, which includes many less wealthy nations in its southern and eastern regions.

Yes, the average Chinese adult is richer than the average European by a whooping 0.22%. How about you read your own articles dumbass. It's literally an example of China reaching the standard of the western world.

EDIT. Forgot to bold a certain part so we can get back to that when you eventually start complaining about numbers again.

What You have to look at is the progression over time, as I’ve explained this in the last reply. Evidently that went over your head. Household income is a perfect example here incidentally:

You're comparing a country that was a developed country more than 50 years ago to a country that has been a developing country in the last 50 years. No shit one of them is going to show a lot of progress. It's like comparing the progress a person does in the first 18 years of the life to the progress of someone from the age of 30 to 48.

You're not proving China is somehow doing better than the western world, you're proving that China is reaching the same standard as the western world.

Come back when you have an actual argument.

Yeah I understand how time works, that’s why I gave you list of sources that show historical progress over time. Not just a single event happening, but clear demonstration of long term trends. I guess that was just too complicated for you to wrap your head around.

So as long as I give you similar data about France your protest argument doesn't count?

• Household income in the last 50 years can be found here
• I can't find the data on people living for less than $1 but you had another point about extreme poverty as well so we'll cover it there.
• The income of the poorest 20% in France is in line with China. Can't link you the exact data but you can put it together in the same databank you referenced.
• Amount of people living in extreme poverty in China and France
• Home ownership is great in China and this is one place where France (and most western countries) can't compete with.
• I'm not sure how concrete usage matters here so I'm just not going to look for that data.
• In terms of rail usage France seems to be doing just fine. In fact France seems to be doing pretty well in the public transit area

Unless you really want to hammer in on the housing based on what you've shown France is doing as well as China.

Nah, that’s just a simplistic straw man you keep building instead of addressing what I actually said.

I'm just building on what you've said. If you feel like it's a strawman, it's because that's the arguments you've given me.

Except I didn’t ignore the wider context, I addressed your points and explained my position clearly.

Nope. If anything you ignored what I asked and gave me, at that point, irrelevant shit that you're now trying to make relevant.

Projection will always be the way of the liberal I suppose.

Does that mean you're calling yourself liberal? Because you're projecting I'm a liberal but I'm a socialist.

Free? When was the last time you got free food? Free in the fully subsidized by the government kind of way. Unless you live on food stamps (in which case you're usually fucked in pretty much every other way) I can't think of another way how you'd get free food. I guess technically dumpster diving but I'm sure it's only a matter of time until it's made illegal (if it's not already illegal).

And if the food not free then more available food doesn't matter if the people can't afford it. We produce enough food to feed everyone and we still have people without food security.

I've literally linked you a bunch of sources showing how living conditions in China have been improving consistently over many decades. Your article isn't a counterpoint to that.

Meanwhile, Cuba is under draconian blockade by the US, and despite that having an obvious impact on the standard of living every poll shows mass support from the public for the government in Cuba. France, on the other hand, has no such excuse. It's one of the richest countries in the world that's been plundering the Global South through colonialism.

First of all, do you understand how time works? Your bunch of sources are years old, my source is months old. Maybe years ago everything is was fine, now it's not.

But more importantly, you said civil unrest is an indication of a bad democracy and you brought up those two countries as examples of good democracy. Your excuses might explain why there are unrest, but they don't invalidate the unrest. There's still unrest in those countries which means a) unrest is not an indicator or b) those countries are not examples of good democracy.

You're such a sad troll.

What if I'm dyslexic? What if my phone auto corrected it and I didn't notice? Why did I continue talking about it like I meant the other thing? It was an honest mistake on my part, but what is your excuse? Anyone actually paying attention would've questioned how did we get to "tangible benefits". In fact that's how I noticed my mistake in your response because unlike you I was actually paying attention to what you were saying. How do you excuse ignoring the wider context of what I was saying and focusing solely on the one thing that's out of place? I can't think of a single excuse where you don't come out as a bad actor, which is probably why you're name calling me instead of accepting fault. The sad troll here is you, getting caught with your pants down.

Nice to see how little you're paying attention.

Nah, it's public unrest coupled with continuously declining living conditions and the government ignoring the demands from the people that shows the government isn't working in the interest of the public.

The articles I linked both said declining living conditions are the reason of protests. When it comes to Cuba the government suppressed the unrest with force. China protests have worsened in the last year. Looking at how fast you responded you probably didn't even open the links. Nevertheless, your criticism applies to those countries as well

And I accidentally misspelled tangible leverage. I never meant to say tangible benefits and I think context-wise it should've been obvious I meant the term you originally brought up. But you only skimmed my comment for keywords so you could dump your prepared copy paste because there's no way you found those examples with sources within 6 minutes, you had those ready to throw out.

I guess you're just a mouthpiece afterall.

So public unrest is an indication that the government doesn't represent the interest of the public? Seems like your examples of fine democracy don't represent the interest of the public either, protests on the rise in China and protests in Cuba.

Where are their tangible benefits that you defined so vaguely you might as well have not defined them at all? Please specifics this time, not this vague BS.

What is shows is that western implementation of the concept of democracy is such that it does not represent the interests of the working majority. Western democracies are class dictatorships where the capital owning class makes the decisions and dictates to the workers. This is precisely what we’re seeing happening in France right now.

You want to expand on that? Considering Ensemble and National Rally (with its far right allies) make up 301 seats out of the 577 seats (and for the lazy, 289 is the minimum to have the majority). If Ensemble had allied with NFP they'd have 339 seats which is more than with the far-right, but not significantly more. Had the left "won" I don't see how you couldn't make the same argument saying it's bullshit.

Meanwhile, authoritarianism is a largely meaningless term. Every government holds authority by virtue of having a monopoly on legalized violence. What actually matters is whom the government is accountable to. When the working majority has no tangible leverage then their voice can be easily ignored. That’s why Macron is able to do what he is doing. The issue is with the way the system is implemented.

Define tangible leverage.

TLDR: democracy is fine, western implementation of the concept is not

Interesting to see where this non-western fine democracy exists.

If anything it shows that authoritarians will choose what keeps them in power rather than what's best for the people. The left didn't get the majority, it was roughly a 3 way split between the left, center-right and far-right. The government would've been with the left and center-right or center-right and far-right. The former would've been better because it would've represented a bigger portion of the voters but the latter was also viable from the perspective of democracy.

However the choice was largely up to Macron (and his party) and he's definitely more autocratic than democratic. His decision is what ultimately threw the left under the bus.

Tldr: Democracy is fine, authoritarianism is the issue.

Out for curiosity, why do you need 128gb of ram?

Refute what exactly? The fact that you keep harping about supply means you don't even understand what I'm saying. The only thing you're refuting is your intelligence.

Erm, most games? You're better off asking which games people might remember 20 years from now. You ask me what games released in 2004 off the to of my head I could only remember Halo 2, Half-life 2 and Doom 3 (and this one I remember because of Half-life 2). I'm 100% certain I'm forgetting some huge release from 2004. But that's the thing, only the really memorable games will be remembered.

I could probably mention 20-30 games from the 00s (maybe 50-60 because some series released a lot of games in that time frame. For example Half-life 2, episode 1 and episode 2 make up 3 games, but I remember all of them because of Half-life 2), but over a decade thousands of games were released. The vast majority of games will be forgotten.

20 years from now maybe some old man like myself remembers Space Marine 2, but it will get wiped from the collective memory.

He's not talking about the communist manifesto, he's talking about Das Kapital. If you don't care to read it there are YouTube summaries such as this one . If you want to get straight into the meat of the subject you can start from chapter 4 and if you think it's all stupid take the 5-6 minutes to listen to chapter 7 so you'd at least know where socialists are coming from when they say capitalists are stealing your money.

How about you make an example where supply actually matters.

Since you're so incapable of thinking for yourself I'll go through it again with everything you mentioned. Same prerequisite except now everyone has a phone and excess phones turn instantly to waste, or do you need a point by point explanation on how excess supply turns into waste?

Scenario 1: Every year 1000 new phones get released.

• Y1: 500 people buy new phones and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 phones just go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y2: Same thing. End of year waste is 2000 phones.
• Y3: Same thing. End of year waste is 3000 phones.
• ...
• Y10: Still the same thing. End of year waste is 10k phones.

Scenario 2: Every 3 years 1000 new phones get released.

• Y1: 500 people buy new phones and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y2: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y3: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 1000 phones
• Y5: New phone comes out. 500 people and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 2000 old phones
• Y6: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 2000 phones
• Y7: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 2000 phones
• Y8: New phone comes out. 500 people and sell their old phones. 500 people buy used phones and throw away 500 phones because nobody wants to buy the previous phone. 500 new phones go to waste. End of the year e-waste is 3000 old phones
• Y0: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 3000 phones
• Y10: People keep using the phones they have. End of the year e-waste is 3000 phones

As you can see. Even with supply meets the demand exactly you generate waste if you release a new phone every year. If the supply exceeds the demand it generated waste. I don't see how it could be made any clearer beyond also going over your comment point by point.

Why would you make your scenario supply constrained?

Because how do you create a secondary market that would buy used phones? I could've gone with "people are poor" but that is much harder to put into an example. The supply constraint itself doesn't matter, but I did my best with the new example.

Your argument is simply if we sold less phones, less would go to e-waste, and duh.

Nope. My argument was that if we made less phones less would go to e-waste. That also covers unsold phones that go straight into waste as evident from my new example.

That wasn’t debate, it was whether releasing new phones every year was wasteful vs new phones being released every 2-3 years.

If you release a new phone every year you manufacture more phones. I guess technically you can manufacture the same amount of the same model for 2-3 years as you would manufacture yearly new phone. But that makes no sense from an enterprising point of view because you reach market saturation and the phones simply don't get sold, you're just manufacturing a loss for the company. Even if you manufacture the same model yearly you're still going to manufacture them less (due to demand dropping) than if you made a new model every year.

Your scenario also assuming people buy used or they just don’t have a phone. People who buy a used phone generally do so instead of buying a new phone.

If you paid attention you would've noticed that in both previous scenarios 800-900 people bought used phones and only 100-200 people bought brand new phones. I did that deliberately because you argued that reselling the phone has an effect when it really doesn't. At the end of the line the person who bought the last used phone throws their current phone away because you can't sell that to anyone. Which means as long as phone is manufactured regardless of whether it gets sold or not or resold or not, eventually it will go in the bin as e-waste. The best way to reduce waste is to not produce excessively like we're doing right now.

Are you stupid? Let's say we have 1000 people and they all want the latest phone, all manufactured phones get bought and everyone sells their old phones. And phones don't break.

Scenario 1: Every year 200 new phones get released.

• Year 1. 200 most willing to pay the highest price buy a new phone, 800 are without a phone
• Year 2. The same 200 buy the latest model and sell their old one. The next 200 get the "new" used phone. 600 are without phones.
• Year 3, 4 and 5 I imagine are self-explanatory. By the end of year 5 everyone has phone.
• Year 6. The most willing buy the 200 new phones and sell their old phone. The next group buy the previous group phones and sell their current phone. The last group has nobody to sell to because nobody wants their phone. 200 phones go into e-waste.
• Year 7. Goes like year 6 except now there's a total of 400 phones in e-waste.
• Year 8, 9 and 10 follow the same pattern. By the end of year 10 there 1000 phones in e-waste.
• Year 20. By the end of the year there will be 3000 phones in e-waste.

Scenario 2: 100 phones get released (to better stimulate the real world because someone is going release a phone anyway, but you can also imagine 200 phones releasing every 2 years as the numbers will the same for every even year).

• Year 1. 100 people get a phone.
• Year 2. 100 people buy the new phone and sell the old one. 100 people buy the old phone.
• Years 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the same pattern. By the end of year 10 everyone has a phone
• Year 11 the first year phones go into e-waste because nobody wants them. Total 100 phones in e-waste.
• Year 12 the next 100 phones go into waste. Total 200 phones in e-waste.
• Years 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are the same pattern.
• Year 20. By the end of the year 1000 phones are e-waste.
• Year 40. By the end of the year 3000 phones are e-waste.

It literally cannot be empirically untrue because what I said is mathematically true. Let's say that in both scenario 1 and scenario 2 at the end of year 50 they decide to throw away all phones and never create another phone again. In scenario 1 there would be 10 000 e-waste phones. In scenario 2 there would be 5000 e-waste phones. The more you create the more waste will come down the line. If you want less waste, make less phones.

And before you go "but recycling?" only about 20% of e-waste gets recycled and the recycling process doesn't recycle all the waste.

Trade ins and selling old phones doesn't really reduce e-waste. What reduces e-waste is manufacturing less phones.