North Korea second happiest country in the world, China's #1

[Outer Chaosmosis]

So what do you want?

I want an interlocutor who can read.

I have spelled out the difference between an argument and an assertion. What, exactly, is unclear to you?

[Hallistar]

So what do you want?

I want an interlocutor who can read.

I have spelled out the difference between an argument and an assertion. What, exactly, is unclear to you?

I didn't seem to get an answer for this part "Links? From which specific source? Can we use common knowledge? Why don't you start by giving us a whole list of links first, and we can spend time debating those?"

Are you going to devalue people's points just because it seems to be an assertion?

I found this for a definition of arguement:

A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
b. A quarrel; a dispute.
c. Archaic A reason or matter for dispute or contention: "sheath'd their swords for lack of argument" (Shakespeare).
2.
a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Are you going to devalue people's points just because it seems to be an assertion?

No. I am going to devalue people's points if those points are unsubstantiated assertions rather than arguments.

I found this for a definition of arguement: [spoiler]A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.

Good for you. Alas, I am using argument in the technical, rather than colloquial sense.

[Zairoon]

It is true. I thought it was odd... until I saw the source! http://shanghaiist.com/2011/05/31/north_korea_releases_global_happine.php

[Wolfmanne]

Wtf?

[Hallistar]

Are you going to devalue people's points just because it seems to be an assertion?

No. I am going to devalue people's points if those points are unsubstantiated assertions rather than arguments.

I found this for a definition of arguement: [spoiler]A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.

Good for you. Alas, I am using argument in the technical, rather than colloquial sense.

Well then why don't you substantiate all your assertions with a link or multiple for everyone of your points in a following post? At the moment, I would do the same for mine, however I have other things to do and it would take some time searching for specific links, and those links will be debated anyways, so for now put your side up, that can be left up for debate, and when I come back and if I want to prove a point/follow the technical definition of arguementation, then I'll do the same.

[Robertiama]

This doesn't surprise me, because the Chinese and North Korean governments do not give their citizens permission to be unhappy. They just ask, and do not take no for an answer. If this is accurate, it is because of the lack of freedoms afforded the citizens of those nations. Meanwhile, the western democracies like the U.S., Canada, Germany, and France actually allow their citizens to express discontent, which means good emotional and political health.

[Sibirsky]

Cheap alternatives that allow countries to bankrupt and reduce to poverty whole populations are, indeed, a bad thing.


As for a list of products, food isn't enough? Then how about cotton and other cash crops (routinely subsidized in the US) machined goods, processed mineral products?

No nation has ever been bankrupted by imports. Various industries have declined in every single nation. That does not necessarily make it a bad thing.

Absurd. Socialism is itself a reaction. Juche is not something someone dreamed up for fun, it was a reaction to conditions besetting a particular society.

Socialism was an idiotic, inefficient, corrupt and unjust reaction.

The Western powers have a history of brutally oppressing and exploiting other nations (as well as dissidents within their own borders). Likewise, of course, the Capitalist system itself is a more all-pervasive oppression than a totalitarian government could ever be.

Nonsense. All the free market is, is people voluntarily exchanging value for value. The west has not locked up dissidents in quite some time.

Yes. The West declared its opposition to communism, created, used, and then began stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, supported anti-communist insurgencies abroad, engaged in full scale economic sabotage and espionage against communist countries, and restricted trade with communist nations worldwide.

And the communist nations declared their opposition to the west, stockpiled weapons of mass destruction, supported communist insurgencies abroad, engaged in full scale sabotage and espionage of western nations, and refused to trade with them.

The Opium Wars were in response to the Chinese seizure and destruction of foreign drug shipments into their country. This prompted brutal imperial responses.

No, the Anglo-Chinese Wars were primarily caused by the Canton System. Which restricted the west's trade with China.

That should come as great news to the people reduced to starvation and slavery by "free trade" with Western nations. That should come as great news to the Chinese reduced to drug addled starvation by Western imperialist traders thirsty for tea and profit.

The Chinese economy, following reforms of 1979, and trade with the west, has seen near double digit growth rates. Incomes in rural areas, grew at a 14.9% last year, surpassing even the income growth of coastal area residents.

If you aren't willing to engage in actual argumentation, you should not expect me (or anyone else) to take you seriously.

Revisionism is not an argument.

So, you do not know what client means, but you then offer an opinion as to who the client in the relationship is? You cannot even go one post without contradicting yourself! Truly pathetic.

They are a US client because they are dependent upon the US and exploited by the US.

You're the pathetic one. You have zero understanding of economics. Yet you attempt to debate economics.

The US is also dependent on China as their manufacturer of cheap goods, and a lender. China is not being exploited. China is being helped. The US and other western nations invest in China, exports to the west create jobs that are higher paying than the local alternatives, and has allowed China to amass a fortune in liquid assets. It's now the 2nd largest economy in the world thanks to this trade. And well on it's way to being the largest.

Good for you. Alas, they are only part of the problem.

Didn't say they were.

Argument from (dubious) authority. Do better.

Dubious? Your denial of reality is dubious.

You can assert it all you want. Unfortunately, you have not come any closer to demonstrating it.

And, of course, I have given numerous other reasons for the West's economic success (imperialism, colonialism, exploitation at home and abroad, theft of resources).

You've done nothing of the sort. You've denied facts and posted revisionist history. I posted facts. And a few, albeit basic reasons. Obviously free markets are the cornerstone, with property rights coming next.

[Hallistar]

You're the pathetic one. You have zero understanding of economics. Yet you attempt to debate economics.

The US is also dependent on China as their manufacturer of cheap goods, and a lender. China is not being exploited. China is being helped. The US and other western nations invest in China, exports to the west create jobs that are higher paying than the local alternatives, and has allowed China to amass a fortune in liquid assets. It's now the 2nd largest economy in the world thanks to this trade. And well on it's way to being the largest.

Thats basically what I said as well, it revolves around demand by the consumers, but I was told in response I was asserting and not arguing something. That and a couple facepalms and /rofls.

[The Black Forrest]

The US is also dependent on China as their manufacturer of cheap goods, and a lender. China is not being exploited. China is being helped. The US and other western nations invest in China, exports to the west create jobs that are higher paying than the local alternatives, and has allowed China to amass a fortune in liquid assets. It's now the 2nd largest economy in the world thanks to this trade. And well on it's way to being the largest.

Well yes and no on the exploiting comment. We are not exploiting China per se but do enable them to exploit their own people. I forget the company but it does a great deal of work and it's mainly prison labor.

[Norstal]

The US is also dependent on China as their manufacturer of cheap goods, and a lender. China is not being exploited. China is being helped. The US and other western nations invest in China, exports to the west create jobs that are higher paying than the local alternatives, and has allowed China to amass a fortune in liquid assets. It's now the 2nd largest economy in the world thanks to this trade. And well on it's way to being the largest.

Well yes and no on the exploiting comment. We are not exploiting China per se but do enable them to exploit their own people. I forget the company but it does a great deal of work and it's mainly prison labor.

There's lots of those. Foxconn comes into mind.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

Adrian White, from the UK's University of Leicester, used the responses of 80,000 people worldwide to map out subjective wellbeing. It's called the Satisfaction with Life Index. The three most important factors when dealing with happiness seems to be health, wealth and education. These findings correlate with other similar surveys such as the World Values Survey published by the United States National Science Foundation. Other things that seem to weigh high on the list are freedom (democracy, political freedom, civil rights, individual choice, etc.), peace (safety, security, low crime) and social tolerance. Happiness-surveys such as these have been carried out over the last 30 years, and the country seemingly coming on top every time is; Denmark.

In this particular survey (the Satisfaction with Life Index), which seems to be one of the most comprehensive of its kind (together with before mentioned; World Values Survey, which also ranks Denmark as #1), these were the results:
#1 – Denmark
#2 – Switzerland
#3 – Austria
#4 – Iceland
#5 – Bahamas
-
#23 – USA
-
#41 – UK
-
#82 - China
-
#90 – Japan
-
#102 – South Korea
-
#178 – Burundi (last)

Obviously North Korea isn't on the list, since they've totally excluded themselves from (most of) the rest of the world, and information about NK is generally very hard to get a hold on, and the information that's not hard to get a hold on is inverse proportionally hard to trust.
Of course this is just another brick in the North Korean propaganda-wall. It's sad for the people that live there, but for the rest of us NK is really just a big bowl of involuntarily hilarious comedy. A farce. It must be fun, as an outsider, to just watch one day's television. I wonder how many times they've won the FIFA World Cup, been to the moon or received the Palme d'Or. lol.

[Terra Mariana]

Proof that ignorance is bliss.

[Sibirsky]

The US is also dependent on China as their manufacturer of cheap goods, and a lender. China is not being exploited. China is being helped. The US and other western nations invest in China, exports to the west create jobs that are higher paying than the local alternatives, and has allowed China to amass a fortune in liquid assets. It's now the 2nd largest economy in the world thanks to this trade. And well on it's way to being the largest.

Well yes and no on the exploiting comment. We are not exploiting China per se but do enable them to exploit their own people. I forget the company but it does a great deal of work and it's mainly prison labor.

That's not enabling. That's China's lack of enforcement of their own laws. The alternative for the Chinese is far, far worse. It's subsistence farming and eternal poverty. As little as the Chinese make, they save a great deal. Their able to buy goods and services. Some of them are able to invest.

Yes, there are massive problems in China. No one is denying that.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Well then why don't you substantiate all your assertions with a link or multiple for everyone of your points in a following post?

Ah, but I have substantiated my own positive assertions with reasoning and specific examples. I have likewise engaged in a rigorous criticism of your inability or unwillingness to do so.

[Hallistar]

Well then why don't you substantiate all your assertions with a link or multiple for everyone of your points in a following post?

Ah, but I have substantiated my own positive assertions with reasoning and specific examples. I have likewise engaged in a rigorous criticism of your inability or unwillingness to do so.

I've given reasoning and specific examples too, you're just being closed-minded.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

No nation has ever been bankrupted by imports.

Goodness no! Predatory lenders and black-mail-by-foreign-aid swoop in and keep that from happening, at the low, low price of forcing the country in question to deregulate all its industries and cut public spending to the bone, leaving it vulnerable to systematic corporate exploitation of its resources and population. Asia, Africa, South America, the Caribbean, it is the same old story.

Various industries have declined in every single nation. That does not necessarily make it a bad thing.

It sure as hell is for people who depend on those industries. It sure as hell is when a country is so impoverished as a result that it is forced to give up any control it has over its economic destiny to external, hostile forces.

Socialism was an idiotic, inefficient, corrupt and unjust reaction.

Again you substitute infantile name-calling for actual argumentation.

Socialism is a perfectly understandable reaction to the very real dangers and injustices of capitalist and colonialist exploitation. For centuries, privileged groups and nations, bearing out the perverse impulses of Capitalism, have run rough-shod over the people, institutions, and environment of this planet and, when a meaningful alternative comes along (socialism, in whatever form) it is attacked with every weapon available.

Nonsense. All the free market is, is people voluntarily exchanging value for value.

There is nothing voluntary about the "free market." Refuse to participate, you die. Try to establish an alternative, the elites kill you. Refuse to consume the right thing at the right time in the right way and the economy screams until hardship forces the sort of consumption needed (note the increasingly common tragicomedic sight of Western politicians pleading with consumers to spend more, to buy anything, to waste their money, so long as it keeps the economy going).

The west has not locked up dissidents in quite some time.

Sure it does. Likewise, teachers and public officials all over, say, the United States are still unable to be affiliated with communism and are often made to swear loyalty oaths. Children in American schools swear loyalty to the country and the system every day! This is not even to get into the less official forms of blacklisting.

Likewise, of course, the West deals with dissident nations (nations that truly seek alternatives to Capitalism) with extreme brutality: sabotage, embargoes, sanctions, wars.

And the communist nations declared their opposition to the west, stockpiled weapons of mass destruction, supported communist insurgencies abroad, engaged in full scale sabotage and espionage of western nations, and refused to trade with them.

Communist nations never refused to trade with Western ones. As for the rest, it was done in self-defense: Communist nations were, to a one, attacked and persecuted from the moment they were founded by Western imperialist powers. That they should respond is, frankly, understandable.

No, the Anglo-Chinese Wars were primarily caused by the Canton System. Which restricted the west's trade with China.

...Trade in drugs and prohibited items.

The Chinese economy, following reforms of 1979, and trade with the west, has seen near double digit growth rates. Incomes in rural areas, grew at a 14.9% last year, surpassing even the income growth of coastal area residents.

The Chinese economy is more controlled by the West every day, forcing China to spend billions trying to sustain crumbling Capitalist economies in the US just to keep its market share intact. China has become more brutal than ever in cracking down on attempts at labor organization and, all the while, has become one of the worst polluters on the planet.

Revisionism is not an argument.

What are you babbling about?

I support my points. You do not. I have given the readers of this forum reasons to believe what I say. You have not. What part of this is giving you trouble?

You're the pathetic one. You have zero understanding of economics. Yet you attempt to debate economics.

"I know you are but what am I?" Again, you demonstrate your infantile inability to make a rational point and, instead, fall back on name-calling! You are embarassing yourself!

Likewise, of course, you have not called attention to a single flaw in my understanding of economics (although you certainly have shown your own inability to distinguish between correlation and causation, support your assertions, or refrain from childish temper tantrums when challenged).

Dubious? Your denial of reality is dubious.

You are right. My denial of reality is as dubious as can be: it is non-existent (because, of course, I am not denying reality). Looks like someone does not even have the basic grammatical competence to recognize a double negative.

And again, Sibi sidesteps my point.

You've done nothing of the sort. You've denied facts and posted revisionist history. I posted facts. And a few, albeit basic reasons. Obviously free markets are the cornerstone, with property rights coming next.

You have not posted a single fact. Frankly, you have not posted a single argument. You have repeated a series of unsubstantiated assertions (which I have challenged, using reasoning and examples) and, worse still, have employed fallacies (ad hominem, ad populum, argument from authority, appeal to pity) to attempt to cover your woeful inadequacies as an interlocutor.

You recite your droning platitudes and scream and cry when I do not fall blindly into line, indeed, when I dare to ask you to support your absurd claims.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

I've given reasoning and specific examples too, you're just being closed-minded.

...No, you have made assertions. You have given your bizarre little account of how things are without giving anyone on this thread the slightest reason to believe a single word you say. If you have indeed brought up actual arguments, by all means point them out to me.

...I would advise those reading this post not to hold their breath waiting for an answer.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

The alternative for the Chinese is far, far worse. It's subsistence farming and eternal poverty.

Ah, the typical capitalist platitude: Leave them no options and then point out that "the alternatives are far, far worse," conveniently ignoring the fact that this lack of options is precisely the fault of capitalist exploitation to begin with.

Yes, there are massive problems in China. No one is denying that.

Nope. You are just denying what caused those problem.

[Hallistar]

I've given reasoning and specific examples too, you're just being closed-minded.

...No, you have made assertions. You have given your bizarre little account of how things are without giving anyone on this thread the slightest reason to believe a single word you say. If you have indeed brought up actual arguments, by all means point them out to me.

...I would advise those reading this post not to hold their breath waiting for an answer.

So this is a bizarre account of how things work?

"Yes....surely how pathetic....yet Isn't China for example the one that is buying all these securities and other United States assets? Is China not a supplier of multiple goods that the United States purchases? Wouldn't the US be dependent upon China for certain goods from there and for an economic boost by selling these monetary assets? China also has it's own internal markets as well and other countries to trade to, but in terms of exploitation, if you mean that you want them to be able to raise the price of their products to pay their workers more, then people in the U.S. might prefer to not buy products that have been imported that cost a higher price, thus leading to an overall lesser demand for Chinese goods. The United State's form of effect on China is the levels of demand for products from it, the issue of subsidising things and reducing the demand for goods from other countries plays into the concept of demand. The effect on smaller countries from the US also comes from its consumers and their demand for items from those countries at certain prices. Yes, there will be businesses and there are facets of the system that will try to make a rather lowered price from sellers still high in the states because they might want a larger profit than they should have and thus end up lowering the demand for such goods from other countries due to still high prices. This does leave out the whole issue of countries such as China devaluing it's currency, however."

[Outer Chaosmosis]

So this is a bizarre account of how things work?

<snip>

In a word, yes.

If you have been reading my posts, you will see my response to the suggestion (not to say "argument") that China is not exploited because 1) trade is volitional and 2) because China contributes to the US (including funding US debt).

[Hallistar]

So this is a bizarre account of how things work?

<snip>

In a word, yes.

If you have been reading my posts, you will see my response to the suggestion (not to say "argument") that China is not exploited because 1) trade is volitional and 2) because China contributes to the US (including funding US debt).

I was discussing how the US could be seen as a client state of China, I have not been reading the entire backlog of your story, and I did mention exploitation in it. I posted when I posted and I built what I saw from there. You should do me a favor after all this and just link everything that you posted that you think is damningly convincing, despite the fact that Sibirsky sure has still been going at it and I didn't see a response from you on all of the points raised by his post recently.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

I didn't see a response from you on all of the points raised by his post recently.

In that case, I suggest you look more closely.

[Hallistar]

I didn't see a response from you on all of the points raised by his post recently.

In that case, I suggest you look more closely.

You cannot just respond to two of his points and claim that covers all of it. Nevermind you just edited the entire post I saw before, gimmie a sec here

Edit: Okay, frankly, I do not see any difference from your style of arguing as compared to Sibirsky's or mine for that matter, and I don't care what you call it, if it bothers you that much, just call it "discussing".

[Outer Chaosmosis]

You cannot just respond to two of his points and claim that covers all of it.

1) Sure I can, if the rest of his(her) arguments boil down to those two points.

2) It is, of course, academic, because I did not do so.

Unlike whatever CrackerJack box you fished your education out of, I do not give points for "just showing up." Now that you have shown, once again, your inability or unwillingness to read my posts and/or respond to them with anything resembling an argument (remember, that is an assertion supported by reasoning and/or argumentation), are you going to actually contribute anything substantive?