EU, US accuse China of "steel dumping"

[ray245]

What does that has to do with the current discussion? It seems like you are just trying to be anti-China for the sake of being anti-China.

Shroom was talking the general idea that people living in third world has a right to raise their living standards just like everyone else.

You fucking have no idea about the geopolitical issues in this region do you? What right does China, with its booming industrial power, any right to swag it around like it owns the neighbourhood? Do you have any idea why SEA countries want American attention?

Make no mistake, the Chinese industrialisation and their claim to regional authority is intricately entwined and it is perfectly relevant to this discussion since we are talking about their right to industrialise.

So you are essentially saying, just because China will swag its influence around the region, it is not desirable to see a richer China?

China is bound to have a strong influence in the east Asia region as long as they are no longer a hermit state. Trying to contain that influence is a hopeless effort for any nation in SEA.

Everyone in the business remembers that China did lord over SEA under.. I forgot which Empire and I don't think anyone wants it to happen again. Besides, playing both sides yields more benefits than siding altogether with one side.

I would say it is during the Ming Dynasty.

[K. A. Pital]

So Ryan's solution is a non-solution, because "lowering birthrate" is something that China already does. For a nation of over 1 billion, it would take quite a lot of time to reduce it's population unless you start killing people.

Hence, that's not a peaceful solution.

Ryan, you did nothing to earn anything except being born in a society which industrialized before others could. Remember it, and don't be jealous if someone is stealing your toys, or you think he is.

I haven't seen such an eloquent defence of the poverty of another: "May he stay poor so that I shall stay rich forever". No man, doesn't work that way. Never did. That attitude leads to wars.

Thankfully, colonialism is gone, so you can't really dictate to any nation (unless you completely bribed their political elite, which has been quite widespread by the USA in the 2nd half of the XX century).

[Ryan Thunder]

So Ryan's solution is a non-solution, because "lowering birthrate" is something that China already does. For a nation of over 1 billion, it would take quite a lot of time to reduce it's population unless you start killing people.

Hence, that's not a peaceful solution.

Sure it is. You just don't want to wait, because waiting and then industrializing wouldn't fuck my society over as badly as industrializing now would.

[Darth Wong]

Ryan Thunder, you are an embarrassment to the western world. You complain that the Chinese shouldn't be allowed to "fuck up your country" by industrializing to even a quarter of your level, when your country is actively fucking over many other countries right now with its massive overconsumption and its use of the rest of the world as a toxic dumping ground.

You should watch some documentaries on how people live in these other parts of the world whose improvement you blithely dismiss, for fear that it might interfere with your birthright luxuries.

[mr friendly guy]

Dumbass Thunder is a goddamn retard and that was obvious before he demonstrated that he didn't realise China had taken steps to curb population growth.

Ignoring for a moment how a 20 year old student some how earnt the money to pay for his flat screen television, his argument doesn't even boil down to I earn enough to afford it so I should, they cannot, so they shouldn't, no matter how hard he tries to shift the goalposts.

His argument comes down to, I earn enough to afford it, they CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO EARN enough to afford it. In that case the onus should be on him to explain why he should be allowed to earn that much in the first place whilst others cannot.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ryan Thunder, you are an embarrassment to the western world.

Is this because I care about the extreme levels of pollution that industrializing countries of billions would produce or because I don't like their doing so fucking with my salary? Both?

You complain that the Chinese shouldn't be allowed to "fuck up your country" by industrializing to even a quarter of your level, when your country is actively fucking over many other countries right now with its massive overconsumption and its use of the rest of the world as a toxic dumping ground.

Since when did we use the rest of the world as a toxic dumping ground? Are you referring to outsourced labor in countries where they have little to no regulations on the matter of toxic dumping? I agree that this is bad but they don't exactly seem to be doing anything about it either. Really, what are we going to do if they say "no"?

You should watch some documentaries on how people live in these other parts of the world whose improvement you blithely dismiss, for fear that it might interfere with your birthright luxuries.

Their present lifestyle is irrelevant. You're talking about industrializing a nation of more than a billion people. When we industrialized we damn-near killed the fucking planet, and that was what, a few hundred million people?

Dumbass Thunder is a goddamn retard and that was obvious before he demonstrated that he didn't realise China had taken steps to curb population growth.

I'm aware of their steps. They haven't worked instantaneously, however, which is what they'd have to do to get their population down to manageable levels if they want to industrialize.

Ignoring for a moment how a 20 year old student some how earnt the money to pay for his flat screen television, his argument doesn't even boil down to I earn enough to afford it so I should, they cannot, so they shouldn't, no matter how hard he tries to shift the goalposts.

It's not mine, it's my dad's. But rest assured, I will earn enough to get one myself one of these days. When I have a real job.

His argument comes down to, I earn enough to afford it, they CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO EARN enough to afford it. In that case the onus should be on him to explain why he should be allowed to earn that much in the first place whilst others cannot.

Oh that's rich, considering you probably earn several times more than I do.

[PainRack]

Since when did we use the rest of the world as a toxic dumping ground? Are you referring to outsourced labor in countries where they have little to no regulations on the matter of toxic dumping? I agree that this is bad but they don't exactly seem to be doing anything about it either. Really, what are we going to do if they say "no"?

Errr. International corporations routinely sidestep environmental regulations by exporting waste from developed countries and dumping them in places like the Phillipines.

Their present lifestyle is irrelevant. You're talking about industrializing a nation of more than a billion people. When we industrialized we damn-near killed the fucking planet, and that was what, a few hundred million people?

And that brings back to the original question, why should YOU be allowed to have your current lifestyle and prevent others from working to have a better life?

Its not as if you're even remotely arguing for sustainable development here, your thrust has been aimed primarily at "they can't be allowed to develop. Nah!"

[AniThyng]

Since when did we use the rest of the world as a toxic dumping ground? Are you referring to outsourced labor in countries where they have little to no regulations on the matter of toxic dumping? I agree that this is bad but they don't exactly seem to be doing anything about it either. Really, what are we going to do if they say "no"?

Put the factory in the first country that says "yes", thus depriving the country taking the moral high ground of valuable foreign investment and jobs. Aggressive environmental legislation and enforcement are a luxury rich countries can afford to indulge in - countries that by and large got rich only after a phase of industrialization that fucked up the local ecology.

[K. A. Pital]

Since when did we use the rest of the world as a toxic dumping ground?

Hey fucktard, tell that to the victims of Bhopal - ever heard the name? I heard more people fucking died there than in god damn Chernobyl. So yes asshole the First World and it's fucking industrial companies that you take great pride in, use the Third World as dumping ground, and in general shat on the citizens of other nations.

But hey, why care right?

When we industrialized we damn-near killed the fucking planet, and that was what, a few hundred million people?

When you don't know just what the fuck you're talking about, it's best to just shut up. The USA is 300 million, the USSR/former USSR - nigh 300 million, Europe is 500 million. Nations which industrialized before the break of XX century, constitute well over 1 billion humans. That's number one.

Next - when rambling, did you forget that the birthrate in developed nations fell only AFTER they industrialized, not before? No birth control was possible before industrialization. Oh, and in the USA you still have a birth surplus, right? Way to go, hypocrite. First go birth control your fundies in the South Belt before talking about "containing" others.

[Ryan Thunder]

Since when did we use the rest of the world as a toxic dumping ground?

Hey fucktard, tell that to the victims of Bhopal - ever heard the name? I heard more people fucking died there than in god damn Chernobyl. So yes asshole the First World and it's fucking industrial companies that you take great pride in, use the Third World as dumping ground, and in general shat on the citizens of other nations.

But hey, why care right?

Uh, no. That's... horrid.

[Edi]

Ryan Thunder looks just about ripe for a VI poll. This thread alone is enough evidence, without needing to search for more, though there is plenty to be found.

[Surlethe]

To be fair, Stas, Bhopal is a single example, and alone is not evidence of a wider trend. I agree with your point, but I think you need something a little more comprehensive than just citing Bhopal - after all, it wouldn't really fly to label the entire Soviet nuclear industry as horribly unsafe and incompetent by citing Chernobyl.

[K. A. Pital]

I agree with your point, but I think you need something a little more comprehensive than just citing Bhopal

Here's a small general overview of hazardous waste dumping. Hope that helps people.

As for Bhopal, not just the disaster itself but the attitude of the company towards the people who were stricken is very demonstrative. See, Bhopal victims got nothing. Chernobyl liquidators and victims got special privileges including free meds, lifetime free ride and lifetime resort sponsorships.

That's I think the point. The First World does not care for the Third World.

[mr friendly guy]

Ignoring for a moment how a 20 year old student some how earnt the money to pay for his flat screen television, his argument doesn't even boil down to I earn enough to afford it so I should, they cannot, so they shouldn't, no matter how hard he tries to shift the goalposts.

It's not mine, it's my dad's. But rest assured, I will earn enough to get one myself one of these days. When I have a real job.

So your earlier argument that you should have your life style because you earnt it is pure bullshit since you don't actually have a "real job" to pay for this lifestyle. Gotcha.

His argument comes down to, I earn enough to afford it, they CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO EARN enough to afford it. In that case the onus should be on him to explain why he should be allowed to earn that much in the first place whilst others cannot.

Oh that's rich, considering you probably earn several times more than I do.

That's rich, asking me to justify an argument you made. Hey, maybe you would like me to hold your hand when you cross the road and do your homework for you too? Not that I have a problem with people earning more money so they can have the same resources to enjoy their life as well.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ignoring for a moment how a 20 year old student some how earnt the money to pay for his flat screen television, his argument doesn't even boil down to I earn enough to afford it so I should, they cannot, so they shouldn't, no matter how hard he tries to shift the goalposts.

It's not mine, it's my dad's. But rest assured, I will earn enough to get one myself one of these days. When I have a real job.

So your earlier argument that you should have your life style because you earnt it is pure bullshit since you don't actually have a "real job" to pay for this lifestyle. Gotcha.

Yeah, okay, so I'm a 20-year-old student making $17 an hour working part time. No, I can't afford a fucking flatscreen TV because I'm putting that money into school instead, so that when I'm done, I can get a job that will let me pay for the needs of a family and (hopefully) have a flatscreen TV/monitor for us to watch movies and stuff on, in a house, with a grassy lawn out front that I'll maintain with a push-mower and a rake. And a plug-in electric car rather than an I.C.E.-based one, if I can manage it.

And I will fucking deserve that, asshole, regardless of your screeching.

His argument comes down to, I earn enough to afford it, they CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO EARN enough to afford it. In that case the onus should be on him to explain why he should be allowed to earn that much in the first place whilst others cannot.

Oh that's rich, considering you probably earn several times more than I do.

That's rich, asking me to justify an argument you made. Hey, maybe you would like me to hold your hand when you cross the road and do your homework for you too? Not that I have a problem with people earning more money so they can have the same resources to enjoy their life as well.

Clearly, you're ignoring my statements about the pollution involved in their doing so fucking over the entire world, not just me and you.

Of course if there were few enough of them for this to not be a huge problem then our lifestyle wouldn't be so seriously affected by it. That's just a side effect, though. Unfortunately there are people who seem to have a bug up their ass about my salary and want to lower it, so the change has to happen NOW NOW NOW for maximum vendetta effect.

[K. A. Pital]

Clearly, you're ignoring my statements about the pollution involved in their doing so fucking over the entire world

The First World plants used to be fucking over the ecology around them until the First World industrialized to an extent where more advanced cleaning technologies were possible, or simply relocated toxic waste and hazardous plants to the Third World as to not deal with the consequences.

The key here: plants became more clean after advanced industrialization was accomplished; definetely not before. And you didn't reply about the KEY point I made: birth rate dropped in Europe, USA, USSR and Japan AFTER industrialization of said nations, not BEFORE. Only AFTER industrialization the birth rate fell - according to many demographers, falling birth rates were a direct consequence of industrialization, by the way. And still the USA is the only, or one of the only, industrialized First World nations which has a positive birth rate IIRC, so your preaching about birth control sounds strange.

Do you even realize how your rant sounds? It sounds like a pimp preaching abstinence.

[Lusankya]

Yeah, okay, so I'm a 20-year-old student making $17 an hour working part time. No, I can't afford a fucking flatscreen TV because I'm putting that money into school instead, so that when I'm done, I can get a job that will let me pay for the needs of a family and (hopefully) have a flatscreen TV/monitor for us to watch movies and stuff on, in a house, with a grassy lawn out front that I'll maintain with a push-mower and a rake. And a plug-in electric car rather than an I.C.E.-based one, if I can manage it.

And I will fucking deserve that, asshole, regardless of your screeching.

And one of my friends has peasants for parents. Her father earns 30 yuan a day working on his farm. At first her father didn't think it was appropriate for a girl to go to university, so she didn't get much help from daddy during her first couple of years (he has since changed his mind). Her parents are also illiterate, so they couldn't help her with her homework or anything like that. They didn't even have electricity when she was growing up, so she couldn't study in the evenings. During her school holidays, she goes to Beijing and works as a tourist guide and earns about 3000 yuan in those six weeks. That's $440. In six weeks. Working full time. You'd earn that much in what? One and a half? She is also using that money to pay for her school. And her younger brother as well. And hopefully when she's done, she'll get a good job so she can afford nice apartment in a city and she'll be able to buy some nice clothes and a new computer. And, of course have a family and look after her parents when they get older.

Will she deserve what she gets any less than you?


Also, China is only able to properly enforce the one child policy in the places that are more industrialised. It cannot effectively do that in the countryside. Despite all the foofurah about forced abortions, they're not really that common, and the fines that they usually give out are only effective against people who have something worth losing in the first place. For peasants, the worst they can do is take away the tv.

[ray245]

And I will fucking deserve that, asshole, regardless of your screeching.

Even when you are working or something like that, the very fact that you will in a developed nation means you are able to access to more products with a much higher income than people in a developing nation.

And no point in trying to use the future to justify your position.

Clearly, you're ignoring my statements about the pollution involved in their doing so fucking over the entire world, not just me and you.

Of course if there were few enough of them for this to not be a huge problem then our lifestyle wouldn't be so seriously affected by it. That's just a side effect, though. Unfortunately there are people who seem to have a bug up their ass about my salary and want to lower it, so the change has to happen NOW NOW NOW for maximum vendetta effect.

Of course, that's big coming from a person living in a nation that contribute a fair bit to global warming and pollution to their environment even BEFORE China starts its industrialisation process.

If you are so concern about pollution, then that mights your lifestyle is not justified due to the amount of pollution made by your nation's forefathers. If people living in China today cannot raise their standard of living due to the mistakes for their forefathers, and have to pay for those mistakes, through your reasoning, we can say that people living in first world nation should 'pay' for all the environmental damage done by the earlier generation.

After all, it is all about people paying for the mistakes for the earlier generation isn't it?

And that's considering the fact that nations industrialising during that time has even less concern for the environment. Environmental concern towards industries is a fairly recent thing.

[K. A. Pital]

Also, China is only able to properly enforce the one child policy in the places that are more industrialised. It cannot effectively do that in the countryside.

If Ryan was even remotely familiar with the phenomena of demographic transition (hint for Ryan: google it), he'd know that industrialization, urbanization, centralized access to contraception and increased cost of living in urban centers, as well as universal education AND emancipation of women, are the key factors for reducing birth rates. Breaking rural culture, religious culture and patriarchal family order is critical.

In essence, demographic transition is unfeasible without industrialization; it can only go one way. He clearly doesn't grasp that the very thing he is fighting, is absolutely necessary to stabilize China population; and in fact has been instrumental in stabilizing it in the recent years, as it was instrumental in stabilizing populations of Europe and all other industrialized nations in the world.

[Lusankya]

Even when you are working or something like that, the very fact that you will in a developed nation means you are able to access to more products with a much higher income than people in a developing nation.

It's amazing how people are unable to realise how much the circumstances of their birth contribute to their chances in life. I became acutely aware of this when I entered high school. I felt sorry for the smart kids I went to primary school with, because I got to go to a posh boarding school in the city, while they were stuck with the crap-ass local school where you got rocks thrown at you if people realised that you actually cared about your education. It occurred to me then that these people were basically set up for mediocre lives simply because they were born in the wrong place.

And that was just a difference between two places in Australia. The gulf between the first world and the developing and third worlds would be even more enormous.

If Ryan was even remotely familiar with the phenomena of demographic transition (hint for Ryan: google it), he'd know that industrialization, urbanization, centralized access to contraception and increased cost of living in urban centers, as well as universal education AND emancipation of women, are the key factors for reducing birth rates. Breaking rural culture, religious culture and patriarchal family order is critical.

I know of one guy who has (IIRC) six daughters who he has hidden in his house because he doesn't want the authorities to know that he has any children before he manages to make a son. That's screwed up. And it really took my friend going to university and her father seeing first-hand the benefits of education for her father to see the wisdom in his daughter getting a good education. It's probably un-PC to say this, but educated peasants just don't know any better.

[Ryan Thunder]

And still the USA is the only, or one of the only, industrialized First World nations which has a positive birth rate IIRC, so your preaching about birth control sounds strange.

Do you even realize how your rant sounds? It sounds like a pimp preaching abstinence.

I'm Canadian. We have 1.58 children born per woman as of 2009, well below the replacement rate. Not as low as Switzerland. The United States is 2.05, by the World Fact Book. The bastards.

That said, China's doing quite a bit better than the US in that regard at 1.79 children per woman.

Also, China is only able to properly enforce the one child policy in the places that are more industrialised. It cannot effectively do that in the countryside.

If Ryan was even remotely familiar with the phenomena of demographic transition (hint for Ryan: google it), he'd know that industrialization, urbanization, centralized access to contraception and increased cost of living in urban centers, as well as universal education AND emancipation of women, are the key factors for reducing birth rates.

Stas, I know that. Is it worth sacrificing millions of lives through famine and floods and severe weather to do it? If we raise the sea level another few metres there are going to be millions of displaced refugees that China and India are going to have to deal with. Can they handle that? Can we? Is it worth it just so they can do it faster?

In essence, demographic transition is unfeasible without industrialization; it can only go one way. He clearly doesn't grasp that the very thing he is fighting, is absolutely necessary to stabilize China population; and in fact has been instrumental in stabilizing it in the recent years, as it was instrumental in stabilizing populations of Europe and all other industrialized nations in the world.

They're already doing nearly as well as we are according to the Fact Book. That's something to consider when talking about whether its feasible or not.

[K. A. Pital]

Yes, but their success depends on more urbanization not less. Besides, like I said, they already instituted policies of birth control superior to ALL other Third World nations. What else do you want from them?

They won't stop industrializing because you say so; their economy has grown too large to simply ignore it - and every year as they shift from export to domestic industry consumption, it will mean less and less what others think and do.

It's better to help them do it cleaner than to spit into a tsunami. The tsunami won't stop because you are spitting. You should simply evacuate people.

Yes, relative wealth of the First World will have to reduce; it's inevitable, you can't run an army of cheap slaves to maintain your cheap MADE IN CHINA products - when they get a little more expensive, the Chinese will get a little richer and you will get a little poorer, but so? Help them do it cleaner. That's all.

[Lusankya]

Stas, I know that. Is it worth sacrificing millions of lives through famine and floods and severe weather to do it? If we raise the sea level another few metres there are going to be millions of displaced refugees that China and India are going to have to deal with. Can they handle that? Can we? Is it worth it just so they can do it faster?

Would that not depend on the total amount of damage done during industrialisation？If a more rapid industrialisation ends up releasing fewer pollutants than a more gradual industrialisation, then rapid industrialisation would be a good thing, right?

They're already doing nearly as well as we are according to the Fact Book. That's something to consider when talking about whether its feasible or not.

And the reason they're doing nearly as well as Canada is because of the people in the industrialised areas. If the underdeveloped areas become developed, then China's population will fall even more drastically. If they all return to a peasant economy, though, they'll probably just start having lots of children again. Just like all the peasants do now.

Yes, relative wealth of the First World will have to reduce; it's inevitable, you can't run an army of cheap slaves to maintain your cheap MADE IN CHINA products - when they get a little more expensive, the Chinese will get a little richer and you will get a little poorer, but so? Help them do it cleaner. That's all.

I don't quite get why he's crying over the loss of the cheap MADE IN CHINA products anyway. Most of it is crap that we don't need. If it becomes more expensive, then we can just stop buying it and have less junk to clean off of our desks. I'm unconvinced that the needed drop in "quality of life" is actually a drop in quality of life at all - it always seemed to me more like a reduction in waste.

[Darth Wong]

Stas, I know that. Is it worth sacrificing millions of lives through famine and floods and severe weather to do it?

To do what? To raise China to a tenth of our living standard, or to maintain our current living standard? You say the former is unacceptable while the latter is necessary. Any reason why it shouldn't be the other way around?

[Ericxihn]

Even if you have to accept the premise that Chinese has to pay for it's ancestors not controlling their population growth, you'd have to go pretty far. China's had 1/5 of the world's population for most of recorded history, allowing for fluctuations due to prolonged periods of war.

And don't worry about the loss of cheap Made in China goods. They'll be replaced pretty quickly by cheap Made in Vietnam/Cambodia/other developing South East Asian country and maybe even eventually by goods made in Africa.