The Nazis were hyper-capitalist with the corporations working as a subsidiary of the government to utilize slave labor.
I wouldn't classify the fascist command economy as either hyper-capitalist or socialist; though it does get hard to distinguish a system in which the state has complete capture of private industry and one in which private industry has complete capture of the state.
I wouldn’t call it hyper capitalist either, it wasn’t shadowrun where you had multiple government-like corporations acting independently of the state. I would think of hypercapitalist ad being more early 20th century america with company stores and scrip, companies having private mercenary law enforcement to use against unions, industrialist families that build houses that are in par with European royal palaces, etc.
The state (and Nazi Party) was definitely at the top of the command structure and made the decisions, and anyone in a corporate management position that strayed too far would find that out rather quickly.
Wasn't there also a thing where the gender gap was decreasing as girls turned 18 and suddenly "appeared"? Like, families had them but just weren't reporting them? I seem to remember reading an article about that. It obviously wouldn't be enough to completely remove the problem, but the gap may not be as large as thought.
They brushed on that in LWT. Most of them are in legal limbo, unable to participate is almost any aspect of society because legally, they don't exist.
Yes, and that's all horrible and all, but, I can assure you that those women will all have their status normalized quick sharp as soon as this problem starts to bite more sharply.
Normalize the non citizen chinese women
Encourage immigration from ethnically similar states
Encourage immigration from Africa and India
Problem starts to be resolved, as there is no shortage of people
New problem, racism!
Hello America from 1970s onwards! Just with, we need women and young people as the first cause rather than "noone wants to work on our farms any more"
I imagine there's a nice, exploitative niche held by these unpersons - domestic servants, cleaners, prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. Like a lot of "Why is this happening?" headscratchers, someone in power is personally benefiting.
I feel the male overpopulation may have been the plan, to have an army with motivation to invade neighboring countries partially for the land partially to take the women as wives.
But then in the 80s the economy started inflating instead and that was forgotten about.
I doubt it. They were probably legitimately concerned with polulation.
Intentionally producing excess males so that you can go invade for wives seems counter productive. So is reducing your total population so that you can use excess males to in order to take land that you dont need with your decreased population.
Its much more likely they were staring at an inability to expand due to regional pressures and the US and thought “reducing population is better than having to fight aggressive wars”.
Trade power imbalance/light colonialism is way more efficient at taking resources to enrich yourself anyway.
I feel the male overpopulation may have been the plan, to have an army with motivation to invade neighboring countries partially for the land partially to take the women as wives.
But then in the 80s the economy started inflating instead and that was forgotten about.
I doubt it. They were probably legitimately concerned with polulation.
Intentionally producing excess males so that you can go invade for wives seems counter productive. So is reducing your total population so that you can use excess males to in order to take land that you dont need with your decreased population.
Its much more likely they were staring at an inability to expand due to regional pressures and the US and thought “reducing population is better than having to fight aggressive wars”.
Trade power imbalance/light colonialism is way more efficient at taking resources to enrich yourself anyway.
Also they are China...
To the south are southeast Asia and India, which are also already full of people
To the west are mountains and arid steppeland, to the north is siberia which is both cold and protected by nuclear weapons.
Considering that China is literally building islands so they can claim seas and oceans as their territories, I think they know where they are expanding too.
Considering that China is literally building islands so they can claim seas and oceans as their territories, I think they know where they are expanding too.
No. This is a trade pressure/light colonialism thing and not a “we need space for people” thing.
Considering that China is literally building islands so they can claim seas and oceans as their territories, I think they know where they are expanding too.
China has invaded Vietnam and swallowed Tibet. There's a reason that their neighbors are so eager for the U.S. to stay involved in the region.
Considering that China is literally building islands so they can claim seas and oceans as their territories, I think they know where they are expanding too.
No. This is a trade pressure/light colonialism thing and not a “we need space for people” thing.
It's not like they are settling anyone on these islands after all.
Considering that China is literally building islands so they can claim seas and oceans as their territories, I think they know where they are expanding too.
No. This is a trade pressure/light colonialism thing and not a “we need space for people” thing.
I meant expansion as in borders, not specifically as in living space. I think for living space, what we'll see is a lot of emigration from China to countries in Southeast Asia via both population pressure within China as well as through China investing in poorer countries (buying properties, etc). Once the population hits critical mass, these countries or at least some regions of them will be receptive to annexation by China. Some places like Singapore may hold out, but most of the region is on the poorer end of countries.
Considering that China is literally building islands so they can claim seas and oceans as their territories, I think they know where they are expanding too.
I feel the male overpopulation may have been the plan, to have an army with motivation to invade neighboring countries partially for the land partially to take the women as wives.
But then in the 80s the economy started inflating instead and that was forgotten about.
I doubt it. They were probably legitimately concerned with polulation.
Intentionally producing excess males so that you can go invade for wives seems counter productive. So is reducing your total population so that you can use excess males to in order to take land that you dont need with your decreased population.
Its much more likely they were staring at an inability to expand due to regional pressures and the US and thought “reducing population is better than having to fight aggressive wars”.
Trade power imbalance/light colonialism is way more efficient at taking resources to enrich yourself anyway.
Also they are China...
To the south are southeast Asia and India, which are also already full of people
To the west are mountains and arid steppeland, to the north is siberia which is both cold and protected by nuclear weapons.
Where are they really going to expand to?
China's expanding for control, not room for their people. They have loads of undeveloped land that'd be cheaper to populate than invading somewhere.
Also, while several of those places have large populations, China has proven they're more than willing to use genocide to displace any undesired group of people with their own if they really did just want the extra space.
yeah, I'm thinking
"guess what, there were already people living in the American West, and Canada, and and and, and that didn't stop anyone... not for long."
Internal colonialism is the word you're looking for.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Considering that China is literally building islands so they can claim seas and oceans as their territories, I think they know where they are expanding too.
No. This is a trade pressure/light colonialism thing and not a “we need space for people” thing.
I meant expansion as in borders, not specifically as in living space. I think for living space, what we'll see is a lot of emigration from China to countries in Southeast Asia via both population pressure within China as well as through China investing in poorer countries (buying properties, etc). Once the population hits critical mass, these countries or at least some regions of them will be receptive to annexation by China. Some places like Singapore may hold out, but most of the region is on the poorer end of countries.
But they're expanding their borders as a trade pressure/light colonialism thing. They're not expanding their borders because they want to draw lines on paper. They want de jure/de facto control over shipping in the area so that they can effectively tax the other nations in the area. I don't think they're planning on annexing those nations. They don't need the living space. They don't need the political control. They just want the resources.
If China wants living space they'll take Siberia and the Far East regions back from Russia someday. That is the territory they have revanchist claim to.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Internal colonialism is the word you're looking for.
That's two words.
Not totally inaccurate though. The majority in China is the Han who are concentrated heavily populated east . The other minority groups are spread out in more rural parts. The Chinese government shows little reluctance to kick them around when it suits their purpose.
Internal colonialism is the word you're looking for.
That's two words.
Not totally inaccurate though. The majority in China is the Han who are concentrated heavily populated east . The other minority groups are spread out in more rural parts. The Chinese government shows little reluctance to kick them around when it suits their purpose.
People really underestimate the Japanese population reduction. Probably because the curve is just over the top now. Down from 126m to 120m in the last decade. No big deal....
Except that if current trends hold, the curve is downward sloped for 80 years. Ending at 50m in 2100.
Why is population reduction a bad thing again? Especially since we are so far out off the pay/productivity curve?
Detroit.
Basically you won’t have the collective productivity to pay for your legacy infrastructure and are faced with some really big challenges re: services vs relocation.
Also companies will stop coming to your market since there’s negative growth, and those that are already there start to seriously consider pulling out.
Why is population reduction a bad thing again? Especially since we are so far out off the pay/productivity curve?
Detroit.
Basically you won’t have the collective productivity to pay for your legacy infrastructure and are faced with some really big challenges re: services vs relocation.
Also companies will stop coming to your market since there’s negative growth, and those that are already there start to seriously consider pulling out.
Okay...but if it's country wide and you don't have government that says "sucks to be you" shouldn't you be able to pivot to a more efficient situation (ie increase wages) and maintain buying power.
I get that it's bad locally, but shouldn't it be better for people in general if it's universal? Kind of like how the plague killed serfdom.
"increase wages" oh ho ho doodmann you're a laugh riot
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Why is population reduction a bad thing again? Especially since we are so far out off the pay/productivity curve?
Detroit.
Basically you won’t have the collective productivity to pay for your legacy infrastructure and are faced with some really big challenges re: services vs relocation.
Also companies will stop coming to your market since there’s negative growth, and those that are already there start to seriously consider pulling out.
There's also the issue of an aging population. It's one of the arguments for continued immigration.
Basically, governments, almost universally, have been fucking up funding of entitlement programs, such that instead of having people pay for their own retirements, they're having people of the working generations funding retirees, and the people not yet working will fund the current working generation. Sort of a human centipede type effect.
When the working generation gets comparatively smaller than the retired generation, that requires one of threethings to happen. Either the working generation have to pay more per capita to keep the retired generation at their existing level, the retired generation have to take a benefit cut, or the government has to borrow money or cut other kinds of services. None of those are particularly popular policy positions.
What SHOULD be happening, is very incrementally moving to a position where the money being raised by taxation for retirement benefits is kept for that generation's retirement benefit. But governments simply can't keep their hands off such a large pool of cash. Which means, when population reduction happens due to emigration of the young, or lower birth rates, everyone gets fucked over.
I mean... technically another solution is just to Logan's Run the elderly, but I can't see that being a popular option.
+8
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited October 2019
Believe it or not you can't automate everything especially elderly care. As the population ages there will be more to take care of and less able-bodied workers to provide important services in retirement communities and in the homes of elderly.
For varying degrees of "sort of". I easily see Trump not lifting a finger for anybody against China unless they loudly support his trade war against them. As I've said, we already established what kind of men lead the NBA, so the rest is haggling about price.
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Trumps still staying mum on Hong Kong to not blow up the trade deal, so hes just as fucking awful as everyone else bowing down to China to do business there.
Hes too chickenshit to follow through on the threat of getting our corporations to pull out of China, since he knows that will tank the economy and kill his reelection chances even more.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Trumps still staying mum on Hong Kong to not blow up the trade deal, so hes just as fucking awful as everyone else bowing down to China to do business there.
Hes too chickenshit to follow through on the threat of getting our corporations to pull out of China, since he knows that will tank the economy and kill his reelection chances even more.
Trump's not saying anything about Hong Kong because he doesn't care, and wants dirt on the Bidens. I doubt there's an economic motive.
Tastyfish on
+17
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Trumps still staying mum on Hong Kong to not blow up the trade deal, so hes just as fucking awful as everyone else bowing down to China to do business there.
Hes too chickenshit to follow through on the threat of getting our corporations to pull out of China, since he knows that will tank the economy and kill his reelection chances even more.
Trump's not saying anything about Hong Kong because he doesn't care, and wants dirt on the Bidens. I doubt there's an economic motive.
Yep. He was asked about the controversy and here's his answer:
Trumps still staying mum on Hong Kong to not blow up the trade deal, so hes just as fucking awful as everyone else bowing down to China to do business there.
Hes too chickenshit to follow through on the threat of getting our corporations to pull out of China, since he knows that will tank the economy and kill his reelection chances even more.
Trump's not saying anything about Hong Kong because he doesn't care, and wants dirt on the Bidens. I doubt there's an economic motive.
Yep. He was asked about the controversy and here's his answer:
Trumps still staying mum on Hong Kong to not blow up the trade deal, so hes just as fucking awful as everyone else bowing down to China to do business there.
Hes too chickenshit to follow through on the threat of getting our corporations to pull out of China, since he knows that will tank the economy and kill his reelection chances even more.
He has no authority to get our corporations out of China, they are private entities engaging in free enterprise.
Posts
I wouldn’t call it hyper capitalist either, it wasn’t shadowrun where you had multiple government-like corporations acting independently of the state. I would think of hypercapitalist ad being more early 20th century america with company stores and scrip, companies having private mercenary law enforcement to use against unions, industrialist families that build houses that are in par with European royal palaces, etc.
The state (and Nazi Party) was definitely at the top of the command structure and made the decisions, and anyone in a corporate management position that strayed too far would find that out rather quickly.
I imagine there's a nice, exploitative niche held by these unpersons - domestic servants, cleaners, prostitutes, drug dealers, etc. Like a lot of "Why is this happening?" headscratchers, someone in power is personally benefiting.
I doubt it. They were probably legitimately concerned with polulation.
Intentionally producing excess males so that you can go invade for wives seems counter productive. So is reducing your total population so that you can use excess males to in order to take land that you dont need with your decreased population.
Its much more likely they were staring at an inability to expand due to regional pressures and the US and thought “reducing population is better than having to fight aggressive wars”.
Trade power imbalance/light colonialism is way more efficient at taking resources to enrich yourself anyway.
Also they are China...
To the south are southeast Asia and India, which are also already full of people
To the west are mountains and arid steppeland, to the north is siberia which is both cold and protected by nuclear weapons.
Where are they really going to expand to?
No. This is a trade pressure/light colonialism thing and not a “we need space for people” thing.
China has invaded Vietnam and swallowed Tibet. There's a reason that their neighbors are so eager for the U.S. to stay involved in the region.
It's not like they are settling anyone on these islands after all.
I meant expansion as in borders, not specifically as in living space. I think for living space, what we'll see is a lot of emigration from China to countries in Southeast Asia via both population pressure within China as well as through China investing in poorer countries (buying properties, etc). Once the population hits critical mass, these countries or at least some regions of them will be receptive to annexation by China. Some places like Singapore may hold out, but most of the region is on the poorer end of countries.
Hong Sha Dao
China's expanding for control, not room for their people. They have loads of undeveloped land that'd be cheaper to populate than invading somewhere.
Also, while several of those places have large populations, China has proven they're more than willing to use genocide to displace any undesired group of people with their own if they really did just want the extra space.
"guess what, there were already people living in the American West, and Canada, and and and, and that didn't stop anyone... not for long."
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
But they're expanding their borders as a trade pressure/light colonialism thing. They're not expanding their borders because they want to draw lines on paper. They want de jure/de facto control over shipping in the area so that they can effectively tax the other nations in the area. I don't think they're planning on annexing those nations. They don't need the living space. They don't need the political control. They just want the resources.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Not totally inaccurate though. The majority in China is the Han who are concentrated heavily populated east . The other minority groups are spread out in more rural parts. The Chinese government shows little reluctance to kick them around when it suits their purpose.
and or imprison and harvest them for body parts.
Except that if current trends hold, the curve is downward sloped for 80 years. Ending at 50m in 2100.
Detroit.
Basically you won’t have the collective productivity to pay for your legacy infrastructure and are faced with some really big challenges re: services vs relocation.
Also companies will stop coming to your market since there’s negative growth, and those that are already there start to seriously consider pulling out.
Okay...but if it's country wide and you don't have government that says "sucks to be you" shouldn't you be able to pivot to a more efficient situation (ie increase wages) and maintain buying power.
I get that it's bad locally, but shouldn't it be better for people in general if it's universal? Kind of like how the plague killed serfdom.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
There's also the issue of an aging population. It's one of the arguments for continued immigration.
Basically, governments, almost universally, have been fucking up funding of entitlement programs, such that instead of having people pay for their own retirements, they're having people of the working generations funding retirees, and the people not yet working will fund the current working generation. Sort of a human centipede type effect.
When the working generation gets comparatively smaller than the retired generation, that requires one of threethings to happen. Either the working generation have to pay more per capita to keep the retired generation at their existing level, the retired generation have to take a benefit cut, or the government has to borrow money or cut other kinds of services. None of those are particularly popular policy positions.
What SHOULD be happening, is very incrementally moving to a position where the money being raised by taxation for retirement benefits is kept for that generation's retirement benefit. But governments simply can't keep their hands off such a large pool of cash. Which means, when population reduction happens due to emigration of the young, or lower birth rates, everyone gets fucked over.
I mean... technically another solution is just to Logan's Run the elderly, but I can't see that being a popular option.
For varying degrees of "sort of". I easily see Trump not lifting a finger for anybody against China unless they loudly support his trade war against them. As I've said, we already established what kind of men lead the NBA, so the rest is haggling about price.
ugh....
It’s actually kind of funny that the NBA thing has me less opposed to taking harder actions against China
Hes too chickenshit to follow through on the threat of getting our corporations to pull out of China, since he knows that will tank the economy and kill his reelection chances even more.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Trump's not saying anything about Hong Kong because he doesn't care, and wants dirt on the Bidens. I doubt there's an economic motive.
I am now a US Citizen!
Tiny American flags for me
Edit: this is not the [chat] thread
Please select your gun and your horse.
This isn't morbid, you now get a gun and a horse. It's a thing.
Bolo Tie not included.
e: Also, CONGRATULATIONS, ELL!!!!
Obviously, we're still a capitalist society.
No cowboy hat?
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Yep. He was asked about the controversy and here's his answer:
So, he's cornering the pro-China corporations in a lose-lose-lose situation:
In the case of the NBA, 3 it is.
I imagine the "international, apolitical corporation" is going to have a tough time navigating this era of increased nationalism and conflict.
He has no authority to get our corporations out of China, they are private entities engaging in free enterprise.