|
30-05-2006, 11:57
| #302 (permalink) | ||
 Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: pe ici, pe colo |
cautatzi pe dc++, Global Dimming - Tragic End of Humanity (2005), un documentar f bun... e facut de BBC. Merita 40 min din viatza voastra. NU trage concluzii apocaliptice, prezinta obiectiv o problema...MARE !!! oare ce s-ar intampla daca musonul asiatic, datorita problemelor climatice cauzate de poluare, nu ar mai fi in masura sa aduca ploile necesare obtzinerii hranei pt 3,6 miliarde oameni? isi vor accepta soarta aceste 3,6 miliarde, sau ... ? musonul are toate sansele ca pe viitor sa fie matrashit, http://www.9am.ro/revistapresei/Busi...ia-acum-incepe Quote:
si chiar daca problema climatica nu se materializeaza, apare problema economica a cererii si ofertei de combustibili fosili, cu finalitate un boom al pretzului petrolului. se contureaza astfel o problema, mai grava decat epuizarea resurselor care e inca indepartata (30 ani minim). resursele alternative.... o utopie, deocamdata. vorbe, nimic concret... consumul e prea mare, resursele alternative nu il vor putea sustine... civilizatzia va fi la mana ISLAMULUI  o sa fie interesant... si trist. "cainii imperialisti" vor plati (sa speram ca numai cash) cu varf si indesat. dar ce ne facem cu china? isi va putea stopa cresterea economica? sau macar sa o tempereze? implicatziile sunt multe si scenariile si mai multe. cert e ca ceva o sa faca boom in zona indo-china.
__________________ Don't hate me because I am beautiful... and smart... and women want me  | ||
|
|
30-05-2006, 23:43
| #303 (permalink) | ||
| Registered User  Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Republic of Earth | Quote:
Quote:
When talking about economic issues, I have more confidence because it can be supported with many data and facts. When talking about social and political issues, the statements are generally personal opinion or preference and they are typically more controversial. Generally speaking, people immigrate to other country in order to find better life and better opportunities, or at least a better dream. Of course, the definition of better life and opportunity are different for different individuals. If one is uneducated and poor peasants, he probably will be happy if he can find a dish-washing or garbage-collection job in a rich country. However, if one is well educated and has decent job in their native country, he generally will not immigrate for those low level jobs even he can get somewhat higher pay. As an immigrant, with my own experience, one needs to spend extra effort comparing to the native people in order to achieve the same goal because of language barrier, culture differences, lack of social connections, and official or non-official discriminations which is understandable. To answer your question, whether it will be a danger for other countries if China opens its border? First, if China fully open its border and there are massive illegal Chinese immigrants moving across the border, other countries will shutdown the border right away and possibly take some military action to enforce the border, which will definitely stop those illegal immigrants. I don’t think it needs an atomic bomb as you mentioned. Secondly, almost all Chinese people have basic food and shelters although some of them might not be so good. I don’t think that they will take the risk to go to foreign countries if they can not find a job there. If there is a massive famine or civil war in China, that will be a different story – people will do anything possible if they are starving. So, all a country need to do to prevent illegal immigrants is to stop them from finding jobs so that they don’t have money to live there. However, that is not an easy task in some society, like in USA. There are massive Hispanic illegal immigrants from Mexico and Latin America countries in the US because American agriculture needs migrant workers and other areas need low-pay unskilled labor too. It is difficult for US government to take strong measure to stop illegal immigrants because both Democrats and Republican need Hispanic voters, which is quite strong in America. This is a dilemma for democracy. Periodic pardon (every several years) by US government to allow illegal immigrants to become legal encouraged more illegal immigrants to come. Generally speaking, those illegal Mexican are hard working people with minimum pay. (I had hired a few of them to work on my backyard construction.) So they indeed have contributed to American economy and the society needs them. Hispanic immigrants are relatively less educated and tend to have more children because of their Catholic religion, which could cause the decline of American population quality in some people’s opinion. I would believe that high professional immigrants from all over the world are the indispensable driving forces for American economic vitality, however, for less educated immigrants, it is difficult to judge whether it has overall positive or negative effect to American society. From what I have heard, Russia-China border is already quite relaxed now and boarder trade, mainly involving small business, is heavy. Current average Russian wage is not much better than average Chinese wage. Chinese wage is even better than many former Soviet countries in Central Asia. China had higher average wage than Russia during some time in 1990s before Russia economy moved to the right track and fueled by the oil price rise recently. So there is not much economic incentive for Chinese to immigrate to Russia. There are some Chinese doing trade business in Russia but I don’t think they have intention to settle there and I don’t think that they hurt Russia society either. But if China falls into major famine or civil unrest, it might create a problem for Russia. | ||
|
|
31-05-2006, 00:09
| #304 (permalink) | ||
| Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Republic of Earth |
I did not want to talk much about democracy because it is a very controversial subject. Since you have asked me about it, I should write some but I have no intention to ask you to accept my opinions. I like most parts of American political, economic, and social system – although it is not perfect –well, human will never find a perfect society, and I just don’t like some of American foreign policies, like invasion of Iraq. As I am getting older and studied and observed more countries, I tend to believe more that American democracy is not suitable for current China. Chinese economic and social development level and citizen education level is insufficient to afford the luxury of democracy. If democracy just simply means general election, or multi-party system, or free speech, I don’t see much of its merit for current China. I guess that it will probably mean to China, unstable government, lacking long term development goal, and inefficiency of executing development plans, possible civil unrest or even civil war. If currently China has ten thousands of riots per year, that number will at least be multiplied by a factor of ten if full western style democracy is suddenly implemented in China. American society has well-established private sectors that are basically unaffected by who is the President or Congressman, well developed social security and welfare system, well developed government agencies that run by technocrats and civil servants, well developed legal systems, and social justice system maintained by a vast number of lawyers. China either lacks or has incomplete. Just taking a look how much paper works are created in US, poor Chinese people surely can not afford those paper works. Rolex watch is good, but if you force a poor man to buy a Rolex watch, he could get bankrupted. It is dangerous to grant too much freedom to citizens when they do not know much about their obligations and responsibilities. From the TV that I watched during June 4th incident in China, I don’t think those students knew much about what democracy is. Many of students simply thought that people can do whatever they want in the democratic society. Most people believe that democracy is a necessity not luxury and they have nothing wrong in their value system. I have no argument against them because it is a value system so it depends on the personal choice. I will never say my above opinions if I am a politician no matter whether I am in Western countries or in China now because it will declare the end of my political career. The meaning of word “Democracy” is nowadays equivalent to the meaning of the word “Impeccability” in the mind of most people including most Chinese. It is good that I am not a politician so that I have this freedom to talk whatever I think. Now you might ask me why China can not have western democracy now if US had democracy two hundred years ago. My controversial answer to this question is that current Chinese society is much more complex than the American society two hundreds years ago when America was basically an agrarian society with small population in a vast land. American democracy was also an evolving process. Poor men and women did not have right to vote at beginning. Slavery system lasted for near one century after American Independence. You might also ask if India can have democracy now why China can not. My answer, again being controversial, is that China is developing better than India, at least in terms of the rate of reducing the number of people from poverty. The other issue that I want to talk about is the relation between democracy and economic development. After Mao died, Chinese leaders and intellectuals were eagerly searching for a feasible development model. Actually, the first a few models they looked at were Romanian model, Yugoslavian model, and Hungarian model. I think that my life experience of studying in Romania was the consequence of this searching. These Eastern European countries were ruled by communists then but were relatively relaxed in economic and political system comparing to rigid China and Soviet Union then. So it was naturally for Chinese communist leaders and intellectuals to look at them. Later, China founded its own reform model through a series of trial and error processes. These processes could be often characterized as periodic “relax – tighten - relax again – tighten again …”. Once the economic and political system was relaxed, the new issues appeared and sign of chaos showed up. So they had to tighten it. Once the economic and political system was tightened, the vitality of the society shrank and thus they had to relax again … So the process continued … However, the general trend was moving toward more relaxed direction. I can understand how painful the process was. It is always easy for outsiders to give criticisms, but you will know how difficult to run a country with more than a billion of poor population when you are in the top leader position. Chinese political system is nowhere near perfect but it could be near optimal. After all, what can you expect more than three decades of averagely 10% annual economic growth rate and rapid improvement of living standard of vast majority of their people, although the right of some dissidents and in particular dissident with political ambition is deprived. Being said all above, I think that Chinese government at least can do two things without endangering the stability of the society. The first thing that they can do is to remove unnecessary censorship from internet because they can not stop the information flow anyway. The second thing that they can do is to cut the remaining tail of communist ideology because nobody believes it any more. Instead, they should introduce more legal and ethic education. The Chinese political system could be near optimal in last three decades, but that does not mean that it will last forever because people want more – political freedom after their stomaches are filled. In my private discussion with some Chinese officials (not top level, but I believe the top level official would think similarly), they are aware this point although they do not talk and admit it in public. I think that the vision of Chinese leaders about economic social development is a three-phase process, authoritarian rule and economic freedom, rule of law, and eventually democracy. Chinese have successful example ahead of them, South Korean, Singapore, and Taiwan all having gong through these three-phase process. These countries have similar culture background as China and they were able to enjoy the living standard comparable to Western Europeans after just a few decades of fast development from poverty. I think that the Chinese government is discouraged to take quick political reform because their economy have developed so far so good and particularly after they have seen the shock-therapy by sudden change in political system and rapid privatization did not worked so well in former communist Eastern European countries. It is not a surprise to me that the marriage of economic freedom and authoritarian government gives fast economic development. The economic freedom stimulates people’s energy to engage in economic activities and authoritarian government gives the development with long-term plan and execution efficiency. In any country, efficiency is needed most in two institutions, military and profit-driven corporation. There is no democracy in military neither in corporation. In my discussions with Americans, some of them even believe that labor union is an “evil force” that drives corporate productivity down. Last edited by ablium; 31-05-2006 at 15:57.. | ||
|
|
31-05-2006, 00:10
| #305 (permalink) | ||
| Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Republic of Earth |
Now I talk a little bit about the relation between democracy and corruption. In the democratic countries, we have seen low degree of corruption in US government, but we also have seen the high degree of corruption in Latin American government (Some Indians told me that their government is very corrupted too). In the authoritarian countries, we have seen low degree of Singapore government, but also have seen the high degree of corruption in Chinese government (at least in low and middle level government agencies). Singapore is not a communist government, but it is an authoritarian government that even does not allow chewing gum to be sold there. I think that corruption issue has something related to the culture and citizen’s consciousness of law and ethics. I believe that Anglo-Saxon culture and legal system has great advantage in fighting corruption. Virtually all countries with Anglo-Saxon culture have low degree of corruption. The other issue that I want to talk about is the election of leaders. Democracy is characterized by election of leaders through a voting system. However, does voting system generate the best leaders? Not always. Democracy is often twisted with popularity. Is George Bush a good leader and intelligent man? Although he came from a very privileged family, he was a “C” grade student in Yale University and he even can not phrase a long English sentence well. Well, you might argue that, in a democratic society, it does not require the president to be an intelligent person as long as he/she has many intelligent aids, which is probably true. (Here is joke that you can enjoy. Bush gave a speech in graduation ceremony at Yale University. He told students “If you got “A” grade, I congratulate you. If you got “C” grade, I say to you, don’t be discouraged, you still have a chance to become the president of United States.”) I don’t know Bush intentionally lied or made wrong judgment about Iraqi’s weapon of mass destruction (WMD). If he truly believed that Iraqi had WMD and was a threat to the US, I would say that he indeed had IQ problem. Saddam might be an evil but he is not an idiot. After UN weapon inspectors searched for WMD in Iraq for several years even Saddam took humiliation to allow UN inspectors to search in presidential palace. Unless Saddam is an absolute idiot, he would not secretly make or hide WMD under that condition. Any person with an average IQ could make the judgment that it was extremely unlikely that Saddam had WMD. Anyway, after so much money spent and so many American solders died, we hear suicide bombs almost everyday in the news. What is this all about? I am glad that Bush had courage to admit some mistakes in Iraq recently. The other example of democracy twisting with popularity is that California elected the movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor two years ago. I watched TV debate between Arnold and other candidates. All Arnold said on the debate were a few empty slogans without any concrete policy. I voted against him as most people from Silicon Valley where constituents' education level is the highest in California, but vast majority Californians from other areas voted for him. Nobody outside the Chinese elite leader circle knows how the Chinese leader is generated, but I think that they also have an indescribable mechanism based on merit. I have never heard of the name of current Chinese president Hu Jintao just a few years ago. He was a graduate from the best Chinese engineering school and he worked as hydroelectric engineer in a backward province for several years. Newspaper New York Times made comments about him when he was invited to G7 meeting in Paris, saying that Hu has photographic memory and probably highest IQ in the town of the meeting. His memory indeed had impressed many people and I think that “highest IQ” comment is likely an overstatement. Don’t make mistake, I am not saying that Chinese leader is better or Chinese method of generating leadership is better. In fact, I don’t like at all the Chinese way of generating leadership because it lacks transparency. But temporarily, I can tolerate their way of generating leadership as long as there is some merit based mechanism. But in long term, the black-box operation must be eliminated. I prefer the American democratic way of election although sometime not the best qualified persons win the race. Democratic election is not perfect but it is the best available now – it is sad that mankind can not find a better way to search for the leader. When China will have western democracy? I can not answer this question, in fact no body can. I guess, it will be in 20 years from now. The deeper you look at human society, the more complex it is. Most long-term predictions will likely fail. Comments are welcome, but I am not going to involve any debates because this is a subject, like all other political subjects, that will never end up at a consensus. Last edited by ablium; 31-05-2006 at 22:04.. | ||
|
|
31-05-2006, 01:33
| #306 (permalink) | ||
| DANemarca + indonEZIA  Join Date: May 2004 Location: Århus | Quote:
Am facut destula climatologie, ma ocup din pasiune de prognoze meteo, si pot spune cu mana pe inima ca tot ce este prezentat acolo are o logica! (am verificat mare parte din afirmatiile de acolo si se comfirma in literatura stiintifica). Din nefericire "dimmingul" a scazut foarte tare dupa 1989 dupa colapsul economiilor blocului sovietic => perioada extrem de calda prin care trece europa deceniul asta. (nu ca as fi de acord cu poluarea..., insa "dimmingul" a tinut destul de bine in sah "warmingul" pana acum). Efectul cresterii economice rapide a Chinei si Indiei si mai ales a cresterii consumului energetic (in mare parte din carbuni), cat si sporirea cantitatii de pulberi in atmosfera datorat industrie si transporturilor e posibil sa fie cel putin pe termen scurt un lucru destul de pozitiv. Cateva simulari recente au aratat ca racirea creata de incarcarea cu aerosoli a aerului de deasupra zonelor din Oceanul Indian si Pacific adiacente continentului Asiatic, duce la 1. Sporirea energiei musonului de vara. 2. Reducerea posibilitatii producerii de Taifunuri puternice, (5 pe Scara Saffir-Simpson). Partea proasta este ca mare parte din umiditate se descarca rapid odata cu inaintarea musonilor pe uscat (deoarece exista nuclee de condensare in excess), ceea ce duce la: 1. ploi mai multe acolo unde deja ploua destul... (ex S-E Chinei) 2. reducerea precipitatiilor in zonele aride, unde desi musonul ajunge mai puternic si cu o frecventa mai mare, masa de aer e deja saracita de vapori de apa. Feedbackul e unul pozitiv, praf determina dimming> dimmingul modifica caracteriticile musonilor > si mai mult praf. Exemplul cel mai clasic este cel al Chinei de N-E (zona Beijing) ce sufera din ce in ce mai mult de pe urma furtunilor de nisip, cauzate de diminuarea vizibila a precipitatiilor. | ||
|
|
31-05-2006, 02:02
| #307 (permalink) | ||
| Administrator  Join Date: May 1999 Location: Bucuresti, Romania |
First of all, thank you for your answers, long answers. Second, I tend to use abbreviations, like "dc" ("de ce" - "why") or "tre' " ("trebuie" - "must", "have to"), so thank you again for your understanding and the time to do that. I agree with some facts you said, therefore I'll talk only about the different (or almost not identical) points of view we have. 1. If we're speaking about a normal situation (China opens its borders and there is no fame, war, disaster or any other type of crisis), I don't think that "other countries will shutdown the border right away and possibly take some military action to enforce the border, which will definitely stop those illegal immigrants". SUA can't stop the waves of immigrants coming from its South borders and Russia will do? And China is not Mexic, China is 100 x Mexic, in terms of population. Again, Russia is not SUA in terms of living standards, especially the South region. So, I don't think that legally accepting immigrants from China will do any good to the South of Russia, a region with people already living in poverty. So I'm quite sure that Russia can't stop the Chinese immigrants using usual (peaceful/legally) military actions. And, as far as I know, the political relations between China and Russia aren't so relaxed nowadays (or in the past). Therefore, I think that if China opens its borders, let's say, right now, then Russia can't do anything without taking measures that lead to war. 2. If we're speaking about a situation of crisis, I think the things are very clear. Being so big and having so many people, China will have millions of deaths in case of fame, civil war, disasters etc. And if you don't have the power to manage such crisis in your country then this means that (indirectly) you transfer some of that control to the adjacent countries that will do anything to protect their citizens from any kind of danger that could come from China. Again, this means war. What I'm trying to say here is that the political regime that China has may not be the best for most or some of Chinese citizens, but for the whole country it is. And for the adjacent countries and political stability in the world it is too. We all know that China is big, sooooo big (territory and population). We all know that the economy of China is threatening the economy of SUA or UE. So, you must not mess up with China, either is a communist or less communist regime there. China is not Yugoslavia, China is not Irak. And, despite of some people are saying here, China is not India as well, even if they are quite equal speaking in terms of population. For example, India is not an aggresive country like China was. From the political point of view, India will be the same over 20 years. On the opposite, there are small chances that the political regime of China will be identical let's say over 10 years. And if any political changes will not take place carefully and knowing the full consequences (good or bad), I'm afraid that there will be some serious problems in China in the near future. And I'm quite sure that China won't ask any political help from other countries, or these will not have the courage to interfere. And if they will have, then this means that it's too late for peace. It will mean that if they have that courage, then those countries are seriously threatened by what's happening in China. Again, this means war. I'm not a pesimistic person, but as I said in the previous post(s), the world will have to face some crisis that there weren't before in the history of mankind. Everybody can speculate about the future, indeed, but nobody can say how the future will be (even the president of the USA  ). And if there will be a war, any kind of large scale war (direct fight for resources, for example), I'm sure that China will be a part of it. And, looking in the past 70 years, we know how powerful is/was SUA, UK, Germany, France, Japan etc. But we know nothing about the power of China. Ok, I'm lying a bit, we have a little knowledge about the military power of China because China is the only country that SUA is afraid of
__________________ Clientu' de azi, victima de maine  | ||
|
|
31-05-2006, 02:25
| #308 (permalink) | ||
| DANemarca + indonEZIA Join Date: May 2004 Location: Århus | Quote:
 A western style democracy is not a fail-safe system, and should not be considered as the optimal way of governing. Elective democracy has a lot of weak points (we know them to well ) and cannot be applied everywhere. I will propose the Russian example; they got tired of communism, fancied some years on some kind of democracy…, and now reverted to a more Latin American way of doing politics. God knows what will happen, after Mr. Putin finishes his term. Russia is reverting to the past, because things went pretty bad in the transition era. It’s a huge country and frankly people aren’t ready for democracy and real politics. It may work for Moscow and the European part of Russia, but the billions of poorly educated people (I dare to say drunken peasants) spread around this massive country, will never have a good opinion about people arguing forever about how to do things. They will always like the “strong leader”/”strong party” approach. Even in Romania, the fact that in a way, the corrupt and undemocratic rule of the ex-communist PSD, looks to some people as more efficient then the current extremely-liberal-pro-western Coalition, points to me that we are not qualified 100% as a country where elective democracy works best. (I cannot resist to point the cases of Mr. Vadim and Becali). India vs China, in both countries hundreds of millions of uneducated people: India…, they have more than 1000 political parties, (they elect pop stars, actors) argue about everything, it takes a decade to even finis a small streach of highway. A very high-tech development (an advantage of the free-spech, democracy and free press in their system), but with a lot of the population lacking basic necessities, (it looks more like a third world country that a booming nation). China…., single party system (The CCP looks more like a different caste), centralized rule. Very good at creating big project and at planning, can create a pretty decent administration. It has a tendency to become more of a technocratic structure than an ideological one. Smart enough not to try to control everything (soviet style), and let capitalism to push the economy. The result is a more industrial, more traditional development based on strong infrastructure, pushing a lot more people above the poverty line. The bad thing is that it is susceptible to high level of corruption, not to mention that it is not a fun thing, to live in a country in which you cannot access the BBC website. (and of course risk to be put in jail or worse for having a different opinion). Both systems have their goods and bads, What about the EU, the overly centralized, bureaucratic, politically correct, do no evil system. What has the EU achieved except the enlargement? The 0,X % economic growth, burning cars on the streets of Paris, the always angry farmers demanding subsidies, corruption?… I would highly doubt we have something to be proud about as Europeans (except the wages, social policies and freedom). And let’s not forget the US…, you have two parties (Republicans and Democrats), that simply do not stand for anything, which are supported by an extensive network of shady funding from businesses and “pressure groups”. You can win the popular vote, but still lose the elections, people need to “register” before they are allowed to vote (and a lot of black folks are always purged from the lists). You can fix the election if you want, dam' those punch card machines). The media is always biased. And even if by constitution you can run for president or start your own party… sure! (yeah right) try it!… democracy my ass. | ||
|
|
31-05-2006, 03:06
| #309 (permalink) | ||
| Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 |
.. I think the main problem in this global issue is that china is acting like a single multinational company and other companies (or even states) have no chance of competing with that on a global market scale. on the other hand, if you brake it in small pieces you'll have riots on both places, in china where everyone will want to replace the bike with a car, and in us/france where every worker will replace the car with a bike, because of a salary/cost of living ten times smaller to compete with the small cost of making the same t-shirt, as it is today in china. for this reason I don't think that will be a big war anytime soon. everyone is comfortable with the situation, china is making t-shirts, us (or every big company in us) is taking advantage of the low cost (and subventioned by goverment - like in a multinational) of manufacture that is possible there. as long as everyside is keeping his own agreement and status, everything is good. that's why china has a goverment fixed parity on currencies. i bet this is the main negociable item on diplomatic meetings. it is liked with us interest rate* and used by both sides to gain advantage on europe or japan. like ablium said, china is the main creditor of us economy, I don't think either of two want to change that. how they negociate the boundaries (or economic interests) is another problem. *5% this year - as a result, china goods is just a little more expensive from now. both sides wanted that, us and europe to reduce the dumping price difference, china to cover the big expenditures that she will have to cover in the following years. Last edited by De Beers; 31-05-2006 at 04:16.. | ||
|
|
31-05-2006, 03:56
| #310 (permalink) | ||
| DANemarca + indonEZIA Join Date: May 2004 Location: Århus | Quote:
And Nukes (and the other WMD's, China has) are a pretty good reason not to go to war, and ... let’s face it war is bad for business today. 50 years ago, it made good economics to go to war, and that’s why the big European nations (and the US ) like that game so much. Now you don’t want that kind of complication. Of course paranoid nations like the US are always finding all kind of “military gaps” so they can spend more money on weapons. And a good scare-crow like China, is an excellent opportunity to put some more tax-payer money into the military-industrial complex.@De Beers..., very interesting, that cleared some stuff. Later edit>.., I'm writing some much this night..., because it's stormy outside and I cannot go to sleep. (I like thunderstorms a lot). Hope I will not get 1.000.000 V thru my TV Tunner antena. : ) | ||
|
|
31-05-2006, 19:14
| #311 (permalink) | ||
| Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Republic of Earth | Quote:
US-China economic relation is strongly inter-dependent today but in a fragile equilibrium. Politically, US and China both suspiciously see each other as potential threat. Can China win a war against US? I would say the probability is absolute zero in any visible future. Can US destroy China without being massively retaliated even US can spend billions of dollars on space defense system? I think that the probability is also near zero. If the leaders of both countries really become mad, it will only mean the end of human civilization. Atomic bomb is the most terrible invention, but it could also be the best invention that mankind ever has because it forces people to abandon the mentality of wars to destroy and conquer other nations. Americans, Europeans, and people from other countries want to continue to drive cars, and more Chinese also want to replace bikes with cars, but the current oil reserve can only last for a few decades. There will be crises of running out resource, not to mention other issues like global warming. Going to war for more share of oil is not a solution and in any party’s interest. So how can major powers solve this problem now? It is not an insoluble problem. I suggest that all major powers contribute 1% of their military budget and do research on these problems under UN administration. This is not something unrealistic and it is beneficial to everybody. Fusion energy is the only clean energy source known now in physics that has the possibility to fundamentally solve the energy need of mankind. The fusion energy research has been under-funded for many years. We should not wait until resource nearly run out- it will be too late and we have to start now to find new energy source like fusion energy, which requires decades of time and billions of dollars to develop the technology. I am not sure that the leaders and politicians in those powerful countries have this vision and I think that they are overly focused on those petty differences rather than common goal of mankind. Last edited by ablium; 01-06-2006 at 15:20.. | ||
|
|
31-05-2006, 23:54
| #312 (permalink) | ||
| Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: ZooYork | Quote:
| ||
|
|
01-06-2006, 11:03
| #313 (permalink) | ||
| Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Republic of Earth | Quote:
Last edited by ablium; 01-06-2006 at 18:58.. | ||
|
|
01-06-2006, 15:23
| #314 (permalink) | ||
| Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: ZooYork | Quote:
| ||
|
|
01-06-2006, 16:25
| #315 (permalink) | ||
| Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 | Quote:
 ) I think is the lack of transparency. A floating currency is still a dream (maybe even a nightmare) but is the only way to have a competitive industry. Unfortunately, this will happened only when China's product will compete on something else then price and in other industries besides polluting ones.
| ||
|
|
01-06-2006, 17:55
| #316 (permalink) | ||
| Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: ZooYork |
Crap. First of all, China has a competitive industry. It's not at all a normative matter. Secondly, China has been competitive all this time thanks to the fixed exchange rate system. This is what actually kept domestic costs under control and allowed the non-sustainable development evolve.
| ||
|
|
01-06-2006, 19:14
| #318 (permalink) | ||
| Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Republic of Earth | Quote:
Last edited by ablium; 02-06-2006 at 11:52.. | ||
|
|
01-06-2006, 23:46
| #319 (permalink) | ||
| Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: ZooYork | Quote:
Quote:
| ||
|
|
02-06-2006, 03:19
| #320 (permalink) | ||
| Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 |
when I think of China and US the first image that comes to mind is that of a two world heavyweight boxing champions, in 12 round, holding each other closeby, with both arms around the opponent, anyone wanting not to take or give a direct hit to the other, protecting himself in this way but not playing right for the audience. kokun. i don't think you fully understand the concept of a single multinational the size of china. "non-sustainable" domains (as you said) in china have a efficiency rate 8 to 10 times lower than japan. this is a very big difference. if all the bikes in the world would be produced in japan I am sure that it will last more than 2 weeks as they are today. Last edited by De Beers; 02-06-2006 at 11:45.. | ||
|
| Advertisment | |
 Cumpără jocuri prin SMSRapid si sigur! | |
 |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| |
