Africa to build thousands of coal fired power plants

[JoeWeber 2,297]

33 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Baumchen is German; and, means little tree.  Anyone know what 'little tree' is in Chinese?  And, how in hell do you pronounce it?

Jerry Baumchen

Right. What are you now, 80? Not to worry.

[ryoder 1,381]

14 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

Baumchen is German; and, means little tree.  Anyone know what 'little tree' is in Chinese?  And, how in hell do you pronounce it?

Jerry Baumchen

Click on the speaker icon below the Chinese spelling:

https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=zh-TW&text=little tree&op=translate

[Baksteen 84]

On 1/15/2021 at 5:26 PM, billvon said:

While that's true, it should be noted that those trees were being cut down anyway for lumber and paper.  Pellets use the otherwise-unusable parts of the tree (bark, first slabs, sawdust etc)

Well that's some comfort at least. I didn't know that.

[kallend 1,622]

On 1/15/2021 at 6:58 PM, JoeWeber said:

 The thing about the Han Chinese is that at their very core they believe they should rule the world.

Rather like the USA in the late 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. . . . . . . . . 

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 minute ago, kallend said:

Rather like the USA in the late 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. . . . . . . . . 

Even if I agreed with your point, and I don't owing mostly due to the relative lack of homogeneity and cohesiveness in our society, the Han still have us beat by thousands of years.

[Phil1111 910]

17 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Even if I agreed with your point, and I don't owing mostly due to the relative lack of homogeneity and cohesiveness in our society, the Han still have us beat by thousands of years.

Every empire in the history of the world has learnt that the costs of an empire outweigh the benefits.African countries have established histories of expropriation and default on mega-projects.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

5 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Every empire in the history of the world has learnt that the costs of an empire outweigh the benefits.African countries have established histories of expropriation and default on mega-projects.

There is quite a bit of history still to come.

[Phil1111 910]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

There is quite a bit of history still to come.

Yahbbbbtt trump supporters believe the world ends this coming week.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Yahbbbbtt trump supporters believe the world ends this coming week.

And eventually they'll be right. What they don't get is that there won't be any I told you so's.

[kallend 1,622]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Even if I agreed with your point, and I don't owing mostly due to the relative lack of homogeneity and cohesiveness in our society, the Han still have us beat by thousands of years.

Since 1945 the US has had more military stationed in more foreign nations than any other country.  The USA engineered coups in Iran, Chile, etc. to put its puppets in place.  Strongly suggests to me a desire to rule the world.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

32 minutes ago, kallend said:

Since 1945 the US has had more military stationed in more foreign nations than any other country.  The USA engineered coups in Iran, Chile, etc. to put its puppets in place.  Strongly suggests to me a desire to rule the world.

Since 1945 is a mere 75 years. The Qing Empire in 1820, it's 25th year, had already grown to 13,700,000 km2 and 450,000,000 people. All without airplanes, a modern Navy and 50 years before their first railroad. If hegemony was our world plan since WWII then we aren't very good at it.

[kallend 1,622]

let's try again:

"Rather like the USA in the late 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. . . . . . . . ." 

I didn't write anything about 2,000 years ago.

 

[JoeWeber 2,297]

13 minutes ago, kallend said:

let's try again:

"Rather like the USA in the late 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. . . . . . . . ." 

I didn't write anything about 2,000 years ago.

 

Of course you didn't. I'm simply pointing out that the current Chinese Leadership, in historical terms, is simply a continuation of the Qing Dynasty. Whereas we have been playing silly games since 1945, with the most modern toys, and going nowhere they have been on a steady path to world domination for quite some time. 

[gowlerk 1,904]

I'm a little surprised this morning, but I guess i shouldn't be. Somehow or other this forum has turned to a discussion of the dominant Chinese ethnic group attempting to displace all the other ethnic groups in the world. European ethnic groups have displaced hundreds of smaller indigenous groups all over the world for centuries. The Han may be numerous, but they have a long way to go to show their ruthlessness is sufficient to succeed in out competing the current leaders.

Edited January 17, 2021 by gowlerk

[kallend 1,622]

40 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Of course you didn't. I'm simply pointing out that the current Chinese Leadership, in historical terms, is simply a continuation of the Qing Dynasty. Whereas we have been playing silly games since 1945, with the most modern toys, and going nowhere they have been on a steady path to world domination for quite some time. 

First you go on about "desire to rule the world" but now it's changed to effectiveness.  Goalposts!

[JoeWeber 2,297]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

First you go on about "desire to rule the world" but now it's changed to effectiveness.  Goalposts!

You are being silly, Professor.

[Phil1111 910]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Of course you didn't. I'm simply pointing out that the current Chinese Leadership, in historical terms, is simply a continuation of the Qing Dynasty. Whereas we have been playing silly games since 1945, with the most modern toys, and going nowhere they have been on a steady path to world domination for quite some time. 

IMO the Han Chinese have one central issue precluding that idea. Communism. Nobody else is going to accept communism and national identities are strong.The second is corruption. The Chinese communist party is very corrupt. With insiders lining their pockets and many looking to move money offshore.

trump was right about one thing and its that insiders of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party control vast wealth. They're moving that money offshore. Panama Papers: How China's wealth is sneaked abroad.

Everyone from Xi on down are moving trillions offshore. Party officials use family members to get their kids into Australian, Canadian, UK and other universities. They shelter their money and hide corporate ownership. "Last year, four Chinese tycoons transferred more than $17 billion into family trusts with the ownership structures all involving entities in the Caribbean. Chinese individuals will account for about one-third of the total inflows for offshore financial centers over the next five years, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group."

Eventually communism, corruption, the nepotism of party officials will catch up with China. Nepotism never works, think Jared and Ivanka.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

34 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

IMO the Han Chinese have one central issue precluding that idea. Communism. Nobody else is going to accept communism and national identities are strong.The second is corruption. The Chinese communist party is very corrupt. With insiders lining their pockets and many looking to move money offshore.

trump was right about one thing and its that insiders of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party control vast wealth. They're moving that money offshore. Panama Papers: How China's wealth is sneaked abroad.

Everyone from Xi on down are moving trillions offshore. Party officials use family members to get their kids into Australian, Canadian, UK and other universities. They shelter their money and hide corporate ownership. "Last year, four Chinese tycoons transferred more than $17 billion into family trusts with the ownership structures all involving entities in the Caribbean. Chinese individuals will account for about one-third of the total inflows for offshore financial centers over the next five years, according to an analysis by Boston Consulting Group."

Eventually communism, corruption, the nepotism of party officials will catch up with China. Nepotism never works, think Jared and Ivanka.

They aren't those kind of communists. They are pure capitalists at heart. When I was backpacking through Southeast  Asia decades ago it was a known thing to stay at the Chinese guest houses for cleanliness and quality. Of course at check out time it was you go home now! Just yesterday I read in a Caribbean journal that South American and some Caribbean countries are now saying out loud that they have another option: China. So I'm not seeing the impediment.

[brenthutch 383]

On 1/17/2021 at 6:22 AM, kallend said:

Rather like the USA in the late 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. . . . . . . . . 

We didn’t believe we could......We did!

[JoeWeber 2,297]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

We didn’t believe we could......We did!

That's Ron thinking: ignore reality and believe what makes you feel good. Step away from the jingoism for a minute and take a cold hard look at American influence around the world since 1945. We didn't earn or buy favoritism we rented it. We've not increased territory or population by acquisition even if you count a few specks in the South Pacific. If you count Philippine Independence in 1946 then we actually lost big time. 

[riggerrob 558]

Communist Chinese expansion into Africa and the South China Sea scares me. I understand that they are struggling to feed all those mainland, han chinese, but dredging the South China Sea is not the answer. Dredging destroys fish breeding grounds and reduces long term harvests. Fish populations will plummet over the next 20 or 30 years (see Grand Banks of Newfoundland for a similar experience.) My suspicion is that the Chinese Communist Central Committee is struggling to feed their population for the next 30 years, but have no plan beyond 30 years.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 hour ago, riggerrob said:

Communist Chinese expansion into Africa and the South China Sea scares me. I understand that they are struggling to feed all those mainland, han chinese, but dredging the South China Sea is not the answer. Dredging destroys fish breeding grounds and reduces long term harvests. Fish populations will plummet over the next 20 or 30 years (see Grand Banks of Newfoundland for a similar experience.) My suspicion is that the Chinese Communist Central Committee is struggling to feed their population for the next 30 years, but have no plan beyond 30 years.

They don't care. They are taking a golden opportunity to expand their empire again. Whatever they can get they'll take. Then they will wait it out for the next opportunity. 

[gowlerk 1,904]

18 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

They don't care. They are taking a golden opportunity to expand their empire again. Whatever they can get they'll take. Then they will wait it out for the next opportunity. 

The next thing is you will be calling them inscrutable. The reality is that they have a very hard time holding their own nation together. They have a long history of regional rebellions. The CCP has imposed a lot of discipline by keeping very tight control over all aspects of society. This is not a sustainable model.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

Just now, gowlerk said:

The next thing is you will be calling them inscrutable. The reality is that they have a very hard time holding their own nation together. They have a long history of regional rebellions. The CCP has imposed a lot of discipline by keeping very tight control over all aspects of society. This is not a sustainable model.

No, but I will call them smart and great at playing the long game. Saying any other nation has a hard time holding their own nation together is a claim few nations can make with a straight face. One thing about the Han Chinese is that they tend to think what is good for China is also good for them; the exact opposite of what we see across a large swath of America today. So you'll need to define "sustainable". Is it 10, 100 a 1000 years or more? 

[gowlerk 1,904]

49 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

So you'll need to define "sustainable". Is it 10, 100 a 1000 years or more? 

How long can the security apparatus keep people from demanding more freedom? The answer is that it depends how ruthless they are willing to be. The People's Republic of China was established in 1949. 71 years so far. They still have not conquered the Island of Taiwan. America needs something to be frightened of. I guess China will have to be it.

Edited January 18, 2021 by gowlerk