> then it will no longer require subsidy from them
Is there actually a huge Chinese consumer market for these products? If not then I'm not sure how you ever actually achieve this endpoint. Chinese wages and American wages are not nearly the same thing yet.
> It will simply be absolutely cheaper (including profit margin) to serve tokens in China.
It will simply create more pollution and environmental destruction too.
> China is building for the future
That's the plan. Whether that's true requires an honest analysis.
> while Western Democracies are afraid of the future
Developed nations take fewer risks than undeveloped ones. Do you assume this pitched dichotomy will naturally sustain itself?
> and of their own shadow.
Yea, it's funny what having open and fair elections can do for a country.
We start logically. Do you presume your handful of cases exemplify the entire Democratic system? Do you assume that "China" is best understood as a single centralized entity?
You completely walked past the argument to pick at a meaningless nit.
Handing out lessons in democracy from the record-holder country in foreign intervention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...) had equal civil rights only in the 1960s, pardoned the perpetrators of Jan 6, has its supreme court in entirely political hands, and has the awesomest repressive force in the world, together with the incarcerated population to go with.
Maybe I picked like 4 meaningless nits as in: US politicians respect so much democracy that they constantly reweight "one person, one vote" to suit the interest of the incumbent, they do not have their outrageously expensive campaigns financed (legally) by private interest groups, the popular vote is represented, and elections are uncontested (unless the wrong candidate wins, where the Supreme Court promptly fixes the issue), and it has room for more than two (quite similar I may say) viewpoints in representation.
Maybe.
But please don't call “Yea, it's funny what having open and fair elections can do for a country.” an argument.
Please don't take one sentence out of a larger context and pretend it represents the argument.
Which, again, you've managed to completely ignore.
The argument, ironically in black and white, so you can sense it, "this isn't a black and white scenario and seeing it as China vs USA blinds you to the complex differences and global geopolitical forces involved."
I get that you don't personally like America, for whatever reason, but you've blinded yourself to sense in your rush to convey your rather negative and absolutely common sensibilities.
Yes, I don't like the US'* self-congratulation we're the good guys-beacon-of democracy bullshit
(The USA, I am fine with the continent of America).
And it's for a reason: I am from one of those countries where US-american meddling buttressed a dictatorship that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Is there actually a huge Chinese consumer market for these products? If not then I'm not sure how you ever actually achieve this endpoint. Chinese wages and American wages are not nearly the same thing yet.
> It will simply be absolutely cheaper (including profit margin) to serve tokens in China.
It will simply create more pollution and environmental destruction too.
> China is building for the future
That's the plan. Whether that's true requires an honest analysis.
> while Western Democracies are afraid of the future
Developed nations take fewer risks than undeveloped ones. Do you assume this pitched dichotomy will naturally sustain itself?
> and of their own shadow.
Yea, it's funny what having open and fair elections can do for a country.