China Economy: News & Discussion

[Indx TechStyle]

Actually the fetching of resources is the reason for success in economy. You are trying to skip over this which ruins the whole point. Technology and all are important too, but the Technology can be applied on natural resources only. If there is no natural resources, then Technology becomes useless. Eg: A car without fuel is useless.

You have bent entire logic. Natural resources can be indigenous or imported but its technology what's needed to forge them into desired things to earn money.

That's possible by economic diversification only.

Even Technology started as a tool of conquest. All the Technology we see today was started or spun-off from military use.

Not really.
If we list up, fewer technologies will be military spin offs than not.

West enriched because of diversification of economies and not conquest mindsets.

So, here too, it was the cultural factor that gave 'conquest-mindset' that resulted in Technology development and eventually spinning off into economy. All the major economic countries today started as a military power

Lot of exceptions are there, not all were so. Be it ROK or Singapore.

You have dropped all the logics and giving rants without explanation.

 

[Vijyes]

You have bent entire logic. Natural resources can be indigenous or imported but its technology what's needed to forge them into desired things to earn money.

That's possible by economic diversification only

You are not getting my point- Natural resources must be accessible and for that political condition has to be met. If you don't meet the political condition of the country that has natural resources, then that country will put sanctions on you or manipulate your currency value and prevent you from getting the resources. Once you don't have access to resources, your Technology ia useless.

Casually mentioning that some resources is needed simply undermines this very fact that natural resources supply itself is a weapon of geopolitics.

Not really.
If we list up, fewer technologies will be military spin offs than not.

West enriched because of diversification of economies and not conquest mindsets.

Go ahead and show me one single important Technology that is not a spin off from conquest needs. I will give examples of military Technology spin off- railway (used for colonial conquest & logistics), telegraph, radio, planes, computers, space satellite, sensors like infrared, SONAR etc (used in TV remote, ultrasound) and so on...

95% of critical economic Technology is due to conquest needs. The Technology may have been altered slightly for civilian use but the core comes from military needs.

Lot of exceptions are there, not all were so. Be it ROK or Singapore.

You have dropped all the logics and giving rants without explanation.

Firstly, Singapore is a transit hub and hence rich. It is not exactly a country but just a city state. Singapore was kicked out from Malaysia in 1965 for being non Muslim. So, this is not a valid point.

ROK is not an independent country. USA occupied Korea in 1950 Korea war to prevent expansion of communism and continued the occupation till date. Similarly, USA has occupied Taiwan against Chinese communists. So, these countries are not even independent to be considered.

100% of big economy countries started as military power. You should be reasonable and not give examples of city states like Monaco or Singapore as they don't count as states. Also, occupied country like ROK, Taiwan don't count as countries.

If you have one single big country which did not begin as military power, name it. As I have been saying, 95% of important civilian economic Technology is a spin off from conquest needs (military logistics & weapons).

 

[Indx TechStyle]

You are not getting my point- Natural resources must be accessible and for that political condition has to be met. If you don't meet the political condition of the country that has natural resources, then that country will put sanctions on you or manipulate your currency value and prevent you from getting the resources. Once you don't have access to resources, your Technology ia useless.

Casually mentioning that some resources is needed simply undermines this very fact that natural resources supply itself is a weapon of geopolitics.

Assuming natural resources as means of success and downplaying economic diversification is illogical itself.

Even after sanctions, isolation and all those things, resources are far more easier to pursue for any nation than technology.

We have plenty of LDC nations sitting on world's largest reserves of important resources. But same isn't case with technologically capable ones.
They are either already rich or growing fast. Singapore & ROK aren't very rich with resources.

Meanwhile the ones who are rich because of dependent upon resources have uncertain future.
Bring a single contradiction to my comment.
Infesting exploration mindset into society to create needs is key to success. All other things will be attracted automatically.

Go ahead and show me one single important Technology that is not a spin off from conquest needs.

Basic vehicles, wheels, fire. Television, telephone or a lot basic things that won't be strategic tech. Medical sector, initial space sector (telescopes & later on payloads) and many other sectors.

I will give examples of military Technology spin off- railway (used for colonial conquest & logistics), telegraph, radio, planes, computers, space satellite, sensors like infrared, SONAR etc (used in TV remote, ultrasound) and so on...

Technology is a result of need or idea. So, eventually a lot was developed for various reasons in past 10,000 years. This may or may not be a need of conquest.

Case is different that technological advancements in 20th century were a result of spin off from military build up.

To contradict me, I will not ask for your example but logic. Because human civilization has existed much before 20th century. So was industrialization of west. West greatly improved productivity for military & non military reasons.

Why would one make things only for war and not when needed? We have plenty of countries who weren't crazy for war & still developed. Plenty of advanced ones who aren't making weapons yet.
On contrary, we have crazy countries with no capabilities.

Simply, why?

95% of critical economic Technology is due to conquest needs.

Not by even far. However, communication related advances made during cold war have become vital for economies.

Firstly, Singapore is a transit hub and hence rich. It is not exactly a country but just a city state. Singapore was kicked out from Malaysia in 1965 for being non Muslim. So, this is not a valid point.

It's advancement is a very valid point. There could be a couple of other small cities too but Singapore. Singapore doesn't sell rice but good quality electronics and has highly developed infrastructure.

ROK is not an independent country. USA occupied Korea in 1950 Korea war to prevent expansion of communism and continued the occupation till date.

Similarly, USA has occupied Taiwan against Chinese communists. So, these countries are not even independent to be considered.

Iraq was also partially occupied by USA. Where it is?
Do search the miracle Han river and miracle of Taiwan. They opened their economy and gained technology from internal and external sources.

They didn't grow because of US intervention.

100% of big economy countries started as military power.

No. 100% of big economies emerged as big military powers. They occupied rest of world.
Even India, Sri Lanka & Hong Kong were British colonies, China was a de facto puppet, Japan was occupied by West after WW2, Germany was torn into pieces and occupied by first & second worlds. Korea had two pieces (one ROK with open economy and other DPRK with closed one). Mali was. There's a big crowd of former colonies in Africa & Asia.

Just go & count how many are developed.

You should be reasonable and not give examples of city states like Monaco or Singapore as they don't count as states.

You should be reasonable enough not to jump on other sides of arguments to escape from explanations and pushing your PoV as fact when you can't even defend it.

Your PoV fails to answer any question, doesn't know much and keeps the perceptions by a general street guy.

Also, occupied country like ROK, Taiwan don't count as countries.

They are de facto countries and their economies advanced because of prolonged economic booms. They gained significantly from alliance with Americans too. Wait, Philippines is also a very close aly of uncle Sam. Why it wasn't that successful? But why it has started to grow just sometimes back?

Prolonged economic booms are generated by diversification of market so industry has to be diversified first (technological advancement). Current markets have to be tapped as per capability of industry (defined by skill level of labor force) and new markets have to tapped while old ones have to be wrapped up as labor advances. New sources of income that gives more profit have to be explored.

This is the ladder of industrial advancement to from lower end to high end that no one can avoid.

Prolonged growth like four Asian tigers, China, India, Vietnam & Philippines underway. Simple economies run temporary booms like that of Pakistan, Bangladesh and RSA etc..

If you have one single big country which did not begin as military power, name it.

Australia but not big in that aspect. Egypt was pretty advanced. It hasn't advanced for quite some time. Isn't it?

Because all big countries always wanted to rule the world. Eastern civilizations used to play conquests among themselves.

Fact is that every country who started as big military power (actually who was a big military power in 18th-19th century, no country ever "started" as a military power) had enriched and industrialized its economy between 17th and 19th century.

They "occupied" rest of world left it till end of 20th century. Some of them (newly freed) grew and some are growing very fast.

Even without involving in any wars.

As I have been saying, 95% of important civilian economic Technology is a spin off from conquest needs (military logistics & weapons).

Hit your head hard in wall. List up all the important technologies human civilization has gained in past 1,000-2,000 years and even what it's gaining now check whether conquest forms even 15% of it.

You are not reasoning, you are trying to push a belief system what you are finding hard to explain because you can't understand it yourself because it is highly consistent, flawed and has nothing to understand.

Kept on posting, you finally had become specific on your culture (about conflict which is actually more illogical), comfortably ignored all techs except war technologies developed during world wars & cold war, ignored human history before 20th century and now you are giving unreasonable reasons when some countries don't fit in your argument.

Every single country in the world fits in the logic I gave. If they are successful in diversification of what they produce, they are successful & safe. If what they produce gives more profit, they are rich.

The moment you linked "occupation" to Taiwan & ROK, you lost the attribute of being reasonable. At least, bother to open URL I provided.

 

[Vijyes]

Assuming natural resources as means of success and downplaying economic diversification is illogical itself.

Even after sanctions, isolation and all those things, resources are far more easier to pursue for any nation than technology.

We have plenty of LDC nations sitting on world's largest reserves of important resources. But same isn't case with technologically capable ones.
They are either already rich or growing fast. Singapore & ROK aren't very rich with resources.

Meanwhile the ones who are rich because of dependent upon resources have uncertain future.
Bring a single contradiction to my comment.
Infesting exploration mindset into society to create needs is key to success. All other things will be attracted automatically.

See, I didn't say that richness is because of natural resources alone. Natural resources is the foundation of wealth but not the only component. Knowledge (Technology) is also an important component.

I am only saying that NATURAL RESOURCES is the MINIMUM requirement for wealth. Natural resources may be indigenous or politically acquired (alliance or colony)

Basic vehicles, wheels, fire. Television, telephone or a lot basic things that won't be strategic tech. Medical sector, initial space sector (telescopes & later on payloads) and many other sectors.

I am speaking of industrial Technology. Fire doesn't count here. Telephone, radio, space also started as military Technology. Medicine is not exactly industrial Technology as even in past, there was medicines

Technology is a result of need or idea. So, eventually a lot was developed for various reasons in past 10,000 years. This may or may not be a need of conquest.

Case is different that technological advancements in 20th century were a result of spin off from military build up.

To contradict me, I will not ask for your example but logic. Because human civilization has existed much before 20th century. So was industrialization of west. West greatly improved productivity for military & non military reasons.

Why would one make things only for war and not when needed? We have plenty of countries who weren't crazy for war & still developed. Plenty of advanced ones who aren't making weapons yet.
On contrary, we have crazy countries with no capabilities.

I am speaking of industrial Technology, not of 2000 years of Technology. All industrial Technology is a spin off from military. Industry itself was started as a means of making war equipment in large quantities.

PS - There is no bigger need than survival and thriving. So, military needs is the biggest needs

Not by even far. However, communication related advances made during cold war have become vital for economies.

All industrial Technology is a spin off from military. But, yes, older Technology are not necessarily military. But we are speaking of industrial Technology only

It's advancement is a very valid point. There could be a couple of other small cities too but Singapore. Singapore doesn't sell rice but good quality electronics and has

Singapore has no electronics manufacturing industry. Singapore has financial hub and mainly used for transit from Malacca. It has no industry.

Iraq was also partially occupied by USA. Where it is?
Do search the miracle Han river and miracle of Taiwan. They opened their economy and gained technology from internal and external sources.

They didn't grow because of US

Taiwanese economy is solely reliant on semiconductor & electronics. Entire Technology and IPR is owned by USA in the critical electronics manufactured by Taiwan. You are being misguided by fake news and opening up. Taiwan was opened up by becoming USA vassal state and hejce USA gave Technology as a means of maintaining alliance.

No. 100% of big economies emerged as big military powers. They occupied rest of world.
Even India, Sri Lanka & Hong Kong were British colonies, China was a de facto puppet, Japan was occupied by West after WW2, Germany was torn into pieces and occupied by first & second worlds. Korea had two pieces (one ROK with open economy and other DPRK with closed one). Mali was. There's a big crowd of former colonies in Africa & Asia.

Just go & count how many are developed.

USA or USSR didn't go around occupying too many countries. Still they are big economic power. Also, calling colonies like India, Africa as being powerful countries is illogical!

However, I get your point that powerful countries indeed went on conquest. But the root cause of industrial economy is still military and that is what your own words indicate.

You should be reasonable enough not to jump on other sides of arguments to escape from explanations and pushing your PoV as fact when you can't even defend it.

Your PoV fails to answer any question, doesn't know much and keeps the perceptions by a general street guy.

Which point did I not answer consistently? I have answered all questions consistently AFAIK.

They are de facto countries and their economies advanced because of prolonged economic booms. They gained significantly from alliance with Americans too. Wait, Philippines is also a very close aly of uncle Sam. Why it wasn't that successful? But why it has started to grow just sometimes back?

Prolonged economic booms are generated by diversification of market so industry has to be diversified first (technological advancement). Current markets have to be tapped as per capability of industry (defined by skill level of labor force) and new markets have to tapped while old ones have to be wrapped up as labor advances. New sources of income that gives more profit have to be explored.

This is the ladder of industrial advancement to from lower end to high end that no one can avoid.

Prolonged growth like four Asian tigers, China, India, Vietnam & Philippines underway. Simple economies run temporary booms like that of

You must first ignore all theories and fake news given by media. Most of it is propaganda like flat earth theory.

Think of everything in a sequential manner starting in time to check how countries like Korea, Taiwan grew, the source for their Technology and the INTENTION behind the moves in a long term perspective. I have told several times that Korea, Taiwan etc were gifted manufacturing Technology in semiconductor by USA as means of holding the alliance.

Australia but not big in that aspect. Egypt was pretty advanced. It hasn't advanced for quite some time. Isn't it?

Because all big countries always wanted to rule the world. Eastern civilizations used to play conquests among themselves.

Fact is that every country who started as big military power (actually who was a big military power in 18th-19th century, no country ever "started" as a military power) had enriched and industrialized its economy between 17th and 19th century.

They "occupied" rest of world left it till end of 20th century. Some of them (newly freed) grew and some are growing very fast.

Even without involving in any wars.

Australia is a natural resources economy. Egypt was never a powerful or big economy country. Egypt was even occupied in WW2.

My point is that industry is a tool of military. Obviously it mean after 18th century

Hit your head hard in wall. List up all the important technologies human civilization has gained in past 1,000-2,000 years and even what it's gaining now check whether conquest forms even 15% of it.

You are not reasoning, you are trying to push a belief system what you are finding hard to explain because you can't understand it yourself because it is highly consistent, flawed and has nothing to understand.

Kept on posting, you finally had become specific on your culture (about conflict which is actually more illogical), comfortably ignored all techs except war technologies developed during world wars & cold war, ignored human history before 20th century and now you are giving unreasonable reasons when some countries don't fit in your argument.

Every single country in the world fits in the logic I gave. If they are successful in diversification of what they produce, they are successful & safe. If what they produce gives more profit, they are rich.

The moment you linked "occupation" to Taiwan & ROK, you lost the attribute of being reasonable. At least, bothe

I was only talking of industrial economy per se, not of 2000 year of history and the economy of these times. Taiwan, korea were all occupied as fortress against communism and hence form party of the cold war. I don't understand for you conveniently excused them.

Are you calling me unreasonable for staying that industrial economy is a spin off from military? Are you just trying to dinner attention by taking off pre industrial era?

 

[Indx TechStyle]

See, I didn't say that richness is because of natural resources alone. Natural resources is the foundation of wealth but not the only component. Knowledge (Technology) is also an important component.

I am only saying that NATURAL RESOURCES is the MINIMUM requirement for wealth. Natural resources may be indigenous or politically acquired (alliance or colony)

Just reverse the statement. Natural resources are raw materials that are available in country's land or can be imported. They very easily to pursue. We have developed countries with nearly no resources and LDC countries with big chunk.
Clearly, natural resources are not important ones. Technology is only

Back to our main point, you said India isn't rich because of not having natural resources. That has lost it's relevance by a mile in our discussion. Large reserves and deposits of petroleum and rare earth metals aren't something that India can't do without. India is right now actually doing very good without them.

China wasn't improving before 1978 and India wasn't before 90s. So, the main reasons of success aren't natural resources for sure.

The reason I provided in URL is the important one.

I am speaking of industrial Technology. Fire doesn't count here. Telephone, radio, space also started as military Technology. Medicine is not exactly industrial Technology as even in past, there was medicines

Any technology counts here.
Even modern industrial technology initiated in 17th century for textile and printing industry with basic machines and metal working technology for making those machines. Only these technologies were enhanced for wars in 20th century.

Technology didn't initiate for wars.

I am speaking of industrial Technology, not of 2000 years of Technology. All industrial Technology is a spin off from military. Industry itself was started as a means of making war equipment in large quantities.

Factually incorrect.

All industrial Technology is a spin off from military. But, yes, older Technology are not necessarily military. But we are speaking of industrial Technology only

All military industrial technology was a spin off from industrial bases developed during past 400 years.

Singapore has no electronics manufacturing industry. Singapore has financial hub and mainly used for transit from Malacca. It has no industry.

They have it. They have a lot lot more. Just see their score in ECI. They are overlooked because they are small in size.

Taiwanese economy is solely reliant on semiconductor & electronics.

Again wrong, see their score in ECI. Then do some research about what they make.

Semiconductor industry is however a high end and high profit industry. Other things made them upper middle, adding semiconductor made them rich.

Entire Technology and IPR is owned by USA in the critical electronics manufactured by Taiwan. You are being misguided by fake news and opening up. Taiwan was opened up by becoming USA vassal state and hejce USA gave Technology as a means of maintaining alliance.

Is that even relevant to our discussion? It doesn't matter if they created technology themselves or obtained from USA.
Countries often utilize foreign assistance to hasten technological advancements.

Matter is they have technology.
Another non NATO ally Afghanistan who is sitting on one of world's largest rare earth metal reserves, isn't a producer of semiconductor, instead it's an LDC.

USA or USSR didn't go around occupying too many countries.

They did plenty.
USA was however a relatively new colonial power.

Also, calling colonies like India, Africa as being powerful countries is illogical!

Singapore can never defeat Pakistan in a war. So is Australia against India.

India is powerful because of its size. So was USSR and so is PRC who challenged US even without being developed countries. Africa would have if it was united.
Well being is a result of GDP per capita. Power is reflected in total GDP. Yeah, inside factors matter however.


Even US was a British colony once. That doesn't count. These countries are de facto autonomous nations today. Them being colonies, war torn or puppet states doesn't matter.

However, I get your point that powerful countries indeed went on conquest.

See, all big & powerful economies at that time. Everyone wanted to control bigger chunk of landmass and slaves for work. Those were the countries only which had industrialized before 20th century. Many countries advanced after that.

You want any big developed country who wasn't very strong before WW2? Malaysia is closer to success. China is going to be one in next few decades, India will be one in second of half of this century.

But the root cause of industrial economy is still military and that is what your own words indicate.

No I didn't. I said technology is a result of need or idea. Making industrial base was a need to fulfill demands of rising population.
Military industrial complex became a need in 20th century due to rising tensions.

Which point did I not answer consistently? I have answered all questions consistently AFAIK.

Which one? You are continuously giving individual examples and rejecting mine for invalid reasons.

You must first ignore all theories and fake news given by media.

Me has nothing to do with media. You just studied a small part of history and made this your "perception". Basically, you studied "what happened" for a short period of time what you can't understand.
You just believe it to so without reason.


I studied "how & why it happened" for a much longer period of time and I can explain my argument.

Most of it is propaganda like flat earth theory.

Flat earth theory is a result of belief system than reasoning.

In our argument, it's only you who is pushing beliefs, plain arguments with no reasoning.

Things just don't happen, they have a reason.

Think of everything in a sequential manner starting in time to check how countries like Korea, Taiwan grew, the source for their Technology and the INTENTION behind the moves in a long term perspective. I have told several times that Korea, Taiwan etc were gifted manufacturing Technology in semiconductor by USA as means of holding the alliance.

I have explained above very well.

Find the reasons why Pakistan failed and Bangladesh won't last long.

Australia is a natural resources economy.

You asked for big countries, didn't you? Their population is small. However, their richness is because of their resources, even they have very good construction and metal working indutries at home. Not that big because of size of population.

Canada too is a powerful country. So is Brazil. But regional powers shadowed by great powers.

Egypt was never a powerful or big economy country. Egypt was even occupied in WW2.

It was advanced in ancient times.

I repeat history doesn't start from 20th century. Even the advances made at that time had their roots in past 300 years.

My point is that industry is a tool of military. Obviously it mean after 18th century

Industry is a tool of nearly everything. It was used in every sector. Spin off techs from all sectors were integrated in each other.

Attributing industry to military solely proves you ill informed.

I was only talking of industrial economy per se, not of 2000 year of history and the economy of these times.

The day human stepped on earth is relevant for our discussion. We have to reach a conclusive consensus that can understood and explained by both.

Not establishing "Okay, military made industry", the argument which itself is inconsistent as per rules of philosophy, reasoning and debate.

Taiwan, korea were all occupied as fortress against communism and hence form party of the cold war. I don't understand for you conveniently excused them.

I'm repeatedly asking, why them being centers of war between ideologies makes them out of discussion?
They are some of few countries which recovered after being totally devastated by war.
Why not plenty of other war torn countries toady?

Leave that all, why them being conquered matters? You are behaving like subjecting the victim of accident to punishment because he didn't have helmet. You aren't even listening argument.
China recovered to smaller extent with lower assistance from experienced countries.

You have discredited independent nations and declared them "not real countries".

Why?? What will you say when east will be screwing west in every sector soon?

Are you calling me unreasonable for staying that industrial economy is a spin off from military?

Yes. It's a plain statement with so many contradictions.

Are you just trying to dinner attention by taking off pre industrial era?

Get back to industrial era, it's you who's deliberately ignoring entire industrial era and picking only the century of wars.

Even today, plenty of industries aren't being ran because of war hysteria.


Back to the real argument, you said countries which are economically poor today are because of natural resources. That's incorrect. US is far far more advanced & capable than Saudi Arabia even if cut down USA to KSA's size.

India couldn't have done anything better without natural resources is incorrect statement. Completely.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vijyes]

Just reverse the statement. Natural resources are raw materials that are available in country's land or can be imported. They very easily to pursue. We have developed countries with nearly no resources and LDC countries with big chunk.
Clearly, natural resources are not important ones. Technology is only

Back to our main point, you said India isn't rich because of not having natural resources. That has lost it's relevance by a mile in our discussion. Large reserves and deposits of petroleum and rare earth metals aren't something that India can't do without. India is right now actually doing very good without them.

China wasn't improving before 1978 and India wasn't before 90s. So, the main reasons of success aren't natural resources for sure.

The reason I prov

China was not improving before 1990 and that is because it got independent in 1950 and it takes some time to set things in order. China first went after military development which lasted till 1975 in first stage where China developed missiles, nuclear submarine, nuclear bombs, artillery etc that laid the foundation for further economic growth! The very theory of military led economy here too.

Your idea that countries can grow without resources is ridiculous. Show me one country which doesn't have indigenous resource and doesn't get any resources from political alliance and still is big enough economically. Give me one example of a decent sized country to make your point.

Any technology counts here.
Even modern industrial technology initiated in 17th century for textile and printing industry with basic machines and metal working technology for making those machines. Only these technologies were enhanced for wars in 20th century.

Technology didn't initiate for wars

The first Technology to be focused upon is weapons manufacturing, not cotton weaving. If you ignore the british and french war machinery of 18th century, it is at your peril

All military industrial technology was a spin off from industrial bases developed during past 400 years

As you said, things don't happen on their own. It needs a motive. The motive for all industrial development is conquest mindset. You are just being unreasonable without giving the motive.

They have it. They have a lot lot more. Just see their score in ECI. They are overlooked because they are small in size

Again wrong, see thei score in ECI. Then do some research about what they make.

Semiconductor industry is however a high end and high profit industry. Other things made them upper middle, adding semiconductor made them rich.

Singapore and Taiwan have no indigenous Technology. Singapore has trade route advantage while Taiwan gets Technology from USA.

Singapore is a country of 50 lakh people where cargoes of half the world flows. How is this not an exception? In addition, Malaysia and Indonesia are oil producers next door. Citing Singapore and comparing it with decent sized countries is inappropriate.

Taiwan is a save of US and hence doesn't even count as independent country. Obviously, as an extension of USA, it became rich.

Is that even relevant to our discussion? It doesn't matter if they created technology themselves or obtained from USA.
Countries often utilize foreign assistance to hasten technological advancements.

Matter is they have technology.
Another non NATO ally Afghanistan who is sitting on one of world's largest rare earth metal reserves, isn't a producer of semiconductor, instead it's an LDC.

Afghanistan is not an ally of USA. USA is technically waging war on Afghanistan itself and not present in Afghanistan to protect it from someone else.

Yes, obviously it matters where it gets the Technology as IPR from foreign countries have other strategic costs. In case of Taiwan & Korea, it is direct slavery to USA.

Such economy is unstable and unsustainable as USA may withdraw anytime and the IPR with it. This will make the economy of ROK & Taiwan collapse by 80%. So, how can you even call such an economy as rich or poor?

See, all big & powerful economies at that time. Everyone wanted to control bigger chunk of landmass and slaves for work. Those were the countries only which had industrialized before 20th century. Many countries advanced after that.

They wanted to control NATURAL RESOURCES. That is because of the reason I am saying - Resources is the basis of economy. No country can advance without natural resources.

No I didn't. I said technology is a result of need or idea. Making industrial base was a need to fulfill demands of rising population.
Military industrial complex became a need in 20th century due to rising tensions

Need to fulfil growing population? That will need agriculture improvement. Even till 1930s, agriculture mostly remained animal driven. It was after 1950 that fertilizer was made. Why will making cotton jenny be a strong motive towards industry?

The most important an urgent need is always related yo WAR. It was war that motivated industrial revolution

Me has nothing to do with media. You just studied a small part of history and made this your "perception". Basically, you studied "what happened" for a short period of time what you can't understand.
You just believe it to so without reason.

You yourself said that military powers in the past that developed industrial base tried to acquire more land and resources. This is exactly what I am saying - resources is the basis of industrial Technology an economy.

You are being highly inconsistent

Flat earth theory is a result of belief system than reasoning.

In our argument, it's only you who is pushing beliefs, plain arguments with no reasoning.

Things just don't happen, they have a reason.

So, the history of military conquest in search of Natural resources and military motives a belief?

Or is your notion that Technology precedes resources is a belief.

You asked for big countries, didn't you? Their population is small. However, their richness is because of their resources, even they have very good construction and metal working indutries at home. Not that big because of size of population

Australia is a country which relies on Natural resources for economy. I asked for a decent sized country which doesn't have natural resources either indigenous or politically obtained and still is major economy

It was advanced in ancient times.

I repeat history doesn't start from 20th century. Even the advances made at that time had their roots in past 300 years

Industry started in 18th century. So, that is where current economy starts. We don't go back before that.

Industry is a tool of nearly everything. It was used in every sector. Spin off techs from all sectors were integrated in each other.

Attributing industry to military solely proves you ill informed.

I only said that the ORIGINAL MOTIVE for industrial progress was military needs. I didn't say that industry is only fo military. Industrial Technology development was funded by governments with the motive of military needs and spun off to economy.

Not establishing "Okay, military made industry", the argument which itself is inconsistent as per rules of philosophy, reasoning and debate

Military MOTIVATED Industrial development. The key word is MOTIVE/MOTIVATION.

I'm repeatedly asking, why them being centers of war between ideologies makes them out of discussion.
They are some of few countries which recovered after being totally devastated by war.
Why not plenty of other war torn countries toady?

Leave that all, why them being conquered matters? You are behaving like subjecting the victim of accident to punishment because he didn't have helmet?

You have discredited independent nations and declared them "not real countries".

Why?? What will you say when east will be screwing west in every sector soon

You mean that being conquered doesn't matter? Then we are not talking of independent states which makes the whole argument of economy absurd. Independence of a country is basic criteria.

These conquered countries rely on mercy of USA. If USA withdraw its IPR & military, entire semiconductor manufacturing process of these vassal countries will come to a halt. This is because all the equipment, codes needs USA personnel to authorize it and USA military to guard it. So, the moment USA withdraws, it will be curtains and countries like Taiwan, Korea will be beggar states

Back to the real argument, you said countries which are economically poor today are because of natural resources. That's incorrect. US is far far more advanced & capable than Saudi Arabia even if cut down USA to KSA's size

USA has more natural resources than Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia may have oil but without imported food, they will starve to death. Saudi has oil but lacks water. So, Saudi Arabia can't have food to feed themselves or have any industrial base due to lack of water needed in agriculture and manufacturing. So, they have their sets of weakness which is much more severe than of even countries like Somalia

 

[su30mki2017]

China lowkey hinting what it would do to retaliate.



View attachment 35504

Retaliations more like shooting their own commie foot,look how many parts come from outside china, merica still holds core tech for huawei phone to run without such parts your holding a brick not a phone

 

[nimo_cn]

Retaliations more like shooting their own commie foot,look how many parts come from outside china, merica still holds core tech for huawei phone to run without such parts your holding a brick not a phone

India can't even produce the shell of the cellphone, I think China is doing quite well in self dependence.

And Huawei has contributed numerous wireless patents to the telecom industry, without Huawei, the telecom industry is not what it is today.

It's time to remind people that Huawei is no soft ball.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ion-for-over-230-patents-source-idUSKCN1TD218
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Huawei Technologies Co Ltd has told Verizon Communications Inc that the U.S. carrier should pay licensing fees for more than 230 of the Chinese telecoms equipment maker’s patents and in aggregate is seeking more than $1 billion, a person briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.

 

[Aghore_King]

Try again...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/over-150-mobile-manufacturing-units-set-up-in-india-in-past-4-years-cmr-1994275?amp=1&akamai-rum=off&ved=2ahUKEwizsLjNlu3iAhXJq48KHXtVBCkQFjAKegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1OqssmDatVdLyn8XD4VaQy&ampcf=1&cshid=1560659763410
Over 150 Mobile Manufacturing Units Set Up in India in Past 4 Years: CMR | Technology ...

Chinese companies like BBK and Xiaomi are forced to make in India due to the recent hike in import duties, this will only increase in future.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

India can't even produce the shell of the cellphone, I think China is doing quite well in self dependence.

And Huawei has contributed numerous wireless patents to the telecom industry, without Huawei, the telecom industry is not what it is today.

It's time to remind people that Huawei is no soft ball.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ion-for-over-230-patents-source-idUSKCN1TD218
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Huawei Technologies Co Ltd has told Verizon Communications Inc that the U.S. carrier should pay licensing fees for more than 230 of the Chinese telecoms equipment maker’s patents and in aggregate is seeking more than $1 billion, a person briefed on the matter said on Wednesday.

Well, we lag on modern smartphones. We make small buttoned phones ourselves.

 

[Cutting Edge 2]

My 2 cents on US-China trade war...

______________________________

Although we Indians are celebrating US' trade war on China, the reality is they aren't doing this recently but US deep state had a plan to move manufacturing away from China since Obama days.

During Obama/Clinton administration they wanted to harm china economically but their way of doing was subtle. They came up with TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). In this arrangement small countries of east Asia would be given incentives and financial support to setup manufacturing industry to unseat China as a world manufacturer.

Under Trump things have become more brazen, straightforward. Its all in open now that US seeks to punish China. Huawei is just tip of iceberg. US is only testing waters and in future they will do more to destabilize Chinese economy.

Now we should ask question why US is doing this.

Are they doing it because of Huawei's connection with CCP?

because of copyright and patent issue?

Is US is concerns about Chinese protectionism?


Before we reach the answer we should understand western mindset about others.

West (White men) for many centuries has been on the top of world order. Now suddenly a non-white nation like China has emerged and started to threaten their centuries old power and influence. Though general public in west might have become more desensitized on this issue because of rampart liberalism in western countries but this is unacceptable to western deep state, who actually controls the narrative (including liberalism).

It is clear that west doesn't want China or any non-white nation to become a superpower or any power which they can't control.


So what does India gain?

India too is a potential threat to western world order. They too see India (in long run) as a competitor to power. That's why west doesn't want to prop India with too much economic benefits from China's fall. On the other hand they need India to counter China so some benefit and support will come. This is the reason we see odd good/bad policy of west towards India.


What is China doing to protect their economy from west?

They are trying to improve their trade to other(non-western) countries. They are in a alliance with Russia who is helping them militarily.



What will be the endgame?

No country has ever survived against the west in last few centuries. The same rule may apply to China as well. In long run Chinese economy will slowdown and other Asian economies (including Indian) will pick up steam. China will no longer be poster boy of economic success. Their stature and abilities will diminish and western hegemony will be cemented for foreseeable future.



_________________________________

- Cutting Edge

 

[rockdog]

India can't even produce the shell of the cellphone, I think China is doing quite well in self dependence.

Do not underestimate India, they already produce lots of mobile phones in India, such as Xiaomi, Vivo, Oppo, Samsung.

The local brand Intex, Micromax might be upgraded into luxury brands and put the main focus on Europe & USA market, that's why we can't see them in India local market, maybe only rich people are using them ...

 

[Vijyes]

My 2 cents on US-China trade war...

______________________________

Although we Indians are celebrating US' trade war on China, the reality is they aren't doing this recently but US deep state had a plan to move manufacturing away from China since Obama days.

During Obama/Clinton administration they wanted to harm china economically but their way of doing was subtle. They came up with TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). In this arrangement small countries of east Asia would be given incentives and financial support to setup manufacturing industry to unseat China as a world manufacturer.

Under Trump things have become more brazen, straightforward. Its all in open now that US seeks to punish China. Huawei is just tip of iceberg. US is only testing waters and in future they will do more to destabilize Chinese economy.

Now we should ask question why US is doing this.

Are they doing it because of Huawei's connection with CCP?

because of copyright and patent issue?

Is US is concerns about Chinese protectionism?


Before we reach the answer we should understand western mindset about others.

West (White men) for many centuries has been on the top of world order. Now suddenly a non-white nation like China has emerged and started to threaten their centuries old power and influence. Though general public in west might have become more desensitized on this issue because of rampart liberalism in western countries but this is unacceptable to western deep state, who actually controls the narrative (including liberalism).

It is clear that west doesn't want China or any non-white nation to become a superpower or any power which they can't control.


So what does India gain?

India too is a potential threat to western world order. They too see India (in long run) as a competitor to power. That's why west doesn't want to prop India with too much economic benefits from China's fall. On the other hand they need India to counter China so some benefit and support will come. This is the reason we see odd good/bad policy of west towards India.


What is China doing to protect their economy from west?

They are trying to improve their trade to other(non-western) countries. They are in a alliance with Russia who is helping them militarily.



What will be the endgame?

No country has ever survived against the west in last few centuries. The same rule may apply to China as well. In long run Chinese economy will slowdown and other Asian economies (including Indian) will pick up steam. China will no longer be poster boy of economic success. Their stature and abilities will diminish and western hegemony will be cemented for foreseeable future.



_________________________________

- Cutting Edge

China is mostly self sufficient and that prevents USA from imposing its will. USA can't simply prop up anyone arbitrarily as that will involve serious building of infrastructure and transfer of Technology and in turn create another competition. So, USA options are limited.

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Micromax might be upgraded into luxury brands and put the main focus on Europe & USA market, that's why we can't see them in India local market, maybe only rich people are using them ...

Micromax was just importing and marketing stuff.

Foreign companies produce more phones in India than Indian ones.

 

[Armand2REP]

Do not underestimate India, they already produce lots of mobile phones in India, such as Xiaomi, Vivo, Oppo, Samsung.

The local brand Intex, Micromax might be upgraded into luxury brands and put the main focus on Europe & USA market, that's why we can't see them in India local market, maybe only rich people are using them ...

The trend I notice from that graph is the death of Mediatek powered phones and the rise of Snapdragons. That would make you even more reliant on the US as Indian customers prefer their chipsets.

 

[rockdog]

Micromax was just importing and marketing stuff.

Foreign companies produce more phones in India than Indian ones.

Sometime around 2016, the CEO of Micromax in China bluffing they were going to have big market share here, and even setup a company in China.

https://m.zol.com.cn/article/5866490.html

At that time no one cares it in China, now almost no one cares it in India ...

 

[Indx TechStyle]

Sometime around 2016, the CEO of Micromax in China bluffing they were going to have big market share here, and even setup a company in China.

https://m.zol.com.cn/article/5866490.html

At that time no one cares it in China, now almost no one cares it in India ...

You don't need to tell that to me. Micromax was never a real handset maker.

Indian infotech companies aren't that advanced nor Indian government was helpful. They never went deep into making something and even current phone manufacturing in India goes on with foreign companies.
India won't have any such company for at least next 20 years either.

As for "setting up headquarters" in China, Micromax was sourcing everything from China. So if R&D centre was to be made ever, it would have been China.

 

[nimo_cn]

DJI just launched this cool gaming toy, robotmaster, it is gonna be a hit.

What makes me laugh is the comment below the video, which is about the CEO's daughter.

 

[nimo_cn]

Do not underestimate India, they already produce lots of mobile phones in India, such as Xiaomi, Vivo, Oppo, Samsung.

The local brand Intex, Micromax might be upgraded into luxury brands and put the main focus on Europe & USA market, that's why we can't see them in India local market, maybe only rich people are using them ...

Comrade, you have done a fine job. I will make sure that SF agency grant you a gold medal for your great contribution.

 

[Cutting Edge 2]

China is mostly self sufficient and that prevents USA from imposing its will. USA can't simply prop up anyone arbitrarily as that will involve serious building of infrastructure and transfer of Technology and in turn create another competition. So, USA options are limited.

Being self sufficient is one thing and having a healthy economy is another. China can't continue its massive economy on domestic S&D alone.