*The concept that we need foregin multinationals to improve quality and bring in technology is not necessarily the case.*

Vanna, it certainly is the case, but not in every case. As to the
workers and farmers, I can't see why anything should change for
them. They operate under the same system and rules as before.

Poirot, yes China is increasing total carbom emissions, as does
every developing country which develops. The question was about
pollution in their environment, their rivers etc. They are trying
to do something about it, unlike before.

So what is your point? Should the peasants stay in the fields, with
no development?

Yabby,

My point is that the peasants would be wise to retain their knowledge of the diversity and self-reliance inherent in a pre-industrial existence, because if China keeps chugging along at its present rate they're going to need it sooner rather than later (if their environment is still capable of supporting them).

*the peasants would be wise to retain their knowledge of the diversity and self-reliance inherent in a pre-industrial existence*

I am sure that they will Poirot, for of course the bulk of the
population still lives as poor peasants. China shared the same
problem as India, ie an ever growing population and ever smaller
plots of land per peasant.

At the moment the whole global story is playing out just as
Darwin predicted it would. Either we'll innovate our way out
of our problems or the whole lot will crash one day, due to
a lack of resources. If that happens a bit sooner or a bit later,
hardly matters, in the bigger scheme of things.

I certainly don't lose sleep over the things that I cannot change.
I also am on no guilt trip about the resources that I do
consume, but they are not large.

The thing is, the global population keeps increasing at around
a quarter milion a day and we can't even solve that one between
ourselves, so I hardly think we'll come to agreement on anything
else. The laws of nature will prevail.

China expanding?

Has it occurred to anyone here that China has smothered the family farming and manufacturing sectors in the countries it exports to, plus the flow-on retail merchants. Ignoring absurd government statistics, this has caused 25% unemployment in Australia and the US (as measured by Ryan Research and some of the contributors to GlobalResearch.com); and other countries would be in a comparable position.

This represents a 40% reduction in each government's income tax revenue, and 30% of retail. This represents an inexorably downward spiralling of these economies.

How is China going to continue expansion while 25% of its market populations cannot purchase on a discretionary basis? It cannot. Moreover, it has papered over the trade gap with underpaying its own workforce. This is a powder keg in an arsonist's hobby house. There are many other insoluble problems.

Anyway, I stopped writing here a few years ago because of the abysmal standard of intellect and deficient knowledge base in most bloggers, but happened on Gilbert's thoughts and returned thinking things might be looking up.

Nope. Same ol' same ol'. I'll come back in a few years.

Tony

where on earth do you get these numbers from? You call ABS data "absurd", but you chuck wild numbers into the ether with no proper sourcing or explanation.

At the height of the great depression in 1931-32 Australia's unemployment rate averaged about 20%.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/110/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=3round.asp

Do you serious believe unemployment now is 25% higher?

Rhian

Wrong. In the Great Depression Australia's unemployment was a sustained 15%, but with brief rises to 20%.

Since 2001, every three years, I have surveyed, door-to-door, a demographic coridor on the Sunshine Coast; an area reputed to be more prosperous than most.

In 2007, when the Bureau recorded 2.3% unemployment I found 19%. Why? Because I used the same definition of unemployment used since 1893... 'Not having a job that pays a livable wage'. If consistent definitions are not used the statistics become meaningless. Moreover, in the 2007 survey almost 90% of participants selected the same definition. A little democracy would resolve this.

The Bureau/Centrelink uses a definition that identifies a person as employed if he engages in one hour of training or work in a week. It also excludes all people on work-for-the-dole, or are on CDEP, or on a whole raft of training programmes and mentoring.

If you accept that as legitimate then you are as despicable as any of the elitist academics, social scientists and pseudo-executives who sneer at the thousands who have committed suicide over not being able to look after their families.

I can tell you one thing; I am in contact with workers across Australia, and with their organisations, and the fury is palpable. The day will come, and probably quite soon, when ordinary Aussies take their lives and futures back; and history suggests that when that happens the sector responsible for 3 million jobs lost will become the target.

This thread is ended for me.