I replied with that sensible investments -- massive ones -- are indeed being made,
(and it is indisputable that they are being made), without the disappearance of the
predatory capitalist system.
I welcome any reply you may have to our exchange, to that point.
Do these sensible investors rely on functioning credit markets and stable currencies to
make their investments and realize returns on their investments?
You look at things with Western eyes, just as most of us (here) tend to do. In the West,
the world of finance has become the tail wagging the economic, social and political dog.
This is much less true in the East. There, national organization and collective purpose
play a much larger and indeed primary role in things, superceding finance. Finance is
employed to serve national and collective ends, rather than the nation, and all of
society, being employed to serve finance capital's ends (as is the case here). In short:
It is a totally different ballgame.
What happens to these investors and their invested capital if suppressing domestic
insurrections and/or launching an international war effort becomes much more
important to the Chinese government?
Domestic insurrection? Possible. Not real likely, but possible. If it happens, it
will have a beginning and an end. China will not collapse into chaos and ruin,
or into a state of permanent civil war, because of it. China might emerge stronger
for it.
Launching an international war effort? Very unlikely. China does not have nearly
sufficient military for that, and will not for a couple more decades, at least.
How many of these investments are simply on paper and have not been followed
through yet to any significant degree? What level of foreign capital and imported
inputs do these renewable energy investments rely on?
Perhaps you have not noticed, Ash, but China is an enormous global CREDITOR,
not debtor! Just because we here in the U.S. are accustomed to living on massive
borrowing does not mean everyone else is. (You knew that, didn't you?)
As for "how many of these investments are simply on paper": here again, I sense
that you look at things through Western eyes, and in this case your eyes have
become accustomed to seeing fraud and lies instead of substance. You see grand
claims and you immediately think -- justifiably -- "oh boy, here comes more
blustery propaganda!" Your reactions are justifiable because that IS indeed how
things have been coming down here for decades. Our whole system is riven with
fraud, corruption, criminality, psychopathy, pathological lying, etc., etc. But that
does not mean that it is the same way everywhere. The reality with respect to
development of renewable energy, infrastructure investment, etc., in China, is
approximately as stated, as you will learn if you investigate. They are not "simply
on paper", but are very much in progress and in (completed) actuality.
Naturally, some things ARE more plan than actuality at this moment. How else could
it be? Do you expect such massive undertakings to be completed overnight? The
Eurasian land bridge that I mentioned is still largely a plan, not an actuality. (Though
the portions of it in China proper are well underway, or completed.) The Great
Green Wall is a CENTURY-LONG project, of which only about 15 years have
elapsed, so it is still very much a work in progress. China's advances on other
fronts is of course a mix of "on paper" and on-the-ground actuality.
There are other ways in which your use of the phrase "simply on paper" is
interesting, and revealing. First of all, the very putting of things "on paper",
which is to say the research and development of detailed, definite plans --
especially plans of such huge national and continental significance -- is an
act of great import, not to be disparaged. A great deal of thought and
planning goes in to drafting such "papers", and you should note very
carefully that such thought and planning is NOT occurring on our side of the
pond. Century-long environmental restoration projects? We're lucky to get
environmental programs funded for 6 months!
Secondly, to dismiss their progress as "simply on paper" discloses your
ignorance. No one who has spent even a moderate amount of time investigating
these things would make such a remark.
I find that when anyone makes arguments such as yours, they are relying on
a million and one assumptions about the global economic, financial and
[geo]political situation that are not true or are not likely to remain true over
the next few decades.
Well, perhaps you could name one or two key ones, rather than alluding
to "a million and one".
The predatory capitalist framework will never lead to sensible investments on
a large scale, because it is... predatory and capitalist.
I guess that means that China is not part of the predatory capitalist
framework, because numerous very sensible and indeed wise and visionary
investments on a VERY large scale are being made there all the time. Either
that, or China IS a part of the predatory capitalist system, and their claims
for progress in the areas in question are a pack of lies. But then, that would
be like us trying to fake the existence of the interstate highway system, or
like us trying to make it LOOK like the city of New York exists, when it really
doesn't.
And if you think the GLOBAL nature of these economic and sociopolitical crises
are being exaggerated, then perhaps you can take a look at the following
articles and point out how the research is wrong. They all specifically address China:
I've read some of TAE's stuff about China, and it is unimpressive. It is mostly
re-warmed/re-hashed China-bear bullshit -- stuff that we've been hearing for the last
15 years. Funny thing, though: China repeatedly, consistently, PROVES THE CHINA
BEARS WRONG.
Yes, I think that the "GLOBAL nature" of these economic and sociopolitical crises
is being exaggerated. Some problems are, of course, global, but they have a way
of being spun-out to form a picture in which ALL of our big problems are global.
That is the picture that rootless capital spins, and wants you to believe. That is
the picture that deracinated people living in incoherent "nations", in the thrall of
capital and unchecked greed, want to believe and DO believe. But it is false.
No one I know claims we will have 6 billion deaths inside of a decade, or anything
close to that...
Well, OK, two decades then. Or three. You know what I'm talking about. Mass
dieoff, a la dieoff.com
what you are arguing, in light of present conditions and trends, is almost as extreme
as extinction within 50 years.
If you really believe that, then you need to get out more. You've been steeped for
too long in a very lopsided view of things. I can relate! I used to be there, too.
You know, Ash, I find that when anyone makes sweeping assertions such as yours, they
are relying on a million and one assumptions about global and national economic,
financial and political situations that are not true or are not likely to remain true over
the next few decades.
You said that China will wean itself off of coal after a century. Do you really think that
a country with the population and energy needs of China will have access that amount
of coal for another 50-100 years?
Ash, have you spent even 10 minutes investigating this issue? China has vast coal
reserves, among the largest in the world, and until recent years was a large coal
exporter. China's reserves will power things handily for at least 50 years, possibly
100, at current rates of consumption; that's not to mention the increasing role of
coal imports from Australia and Vietnam.
But the important thing is not coal reserves or imports; the important thing is that
the Chinese are smart enough to be making moves away from coal, and toward
natural gas (of which there are fabulous quantities on the Eurasian land mass)
and renewables. They will be powering themselves with renewables probably
decades before the coal is exhausted. Unlike us, they think ahead, and
they are capable of setting national priorities and acting on them, persistently,
with the requisite commitment of resources.
BTW, to forestall misundertanding: in no way should my words be taken to mean that I
think China to be some kind of paradise, or faultless, or a model in every respect. No, not
at all. The Chinese have their own problems with corruption, very serious ones, plus a
very nasty class system, terrible human rights problems, and so on. In some respects
it is an ugly place. But at the same time, they are making fabulous progress on many
fronts. So it is a big mixed bag.
Do you think peak oil is a myth, or do you believe Yergin's myth that its effects
won't be felt for a long time?
Peak oil is not quite a "myth", but... have you kept up with literature on this subject?
Are you aware of the sea change that is taking place, over the last 5 years, in
oil and gas reserves estimates? Are you aware of the way in which higher oil prices
are stimulating discoveries? Are you aware of the way in which horizontal drilling and
fracking are changing the picture, dramatically? Yes, I know, fracking sucks for other
reasons, and I know that having more oil than we might have thought is bad from
other standpoints (global warming); but you were asking about the ENERGY picture.
How do you reconcile the MASSIVE consequences of global warming that may
have already reached a tipping point with your vision for the future that you
apparently believe is 100% certain?
Ash, I don't believe that ANYTHING is 100% certain. Never have.
As for the MASSIVE consequences of global warming: Yes. True. There are
massive consequences. We'll have to live with them. It won't be easy. Many,
many people will die before their time. There will be much suffering, hunger,
disease, want, and strife. There will be wars and rumors of wars. But let
not your heart be troubled.
WELCOME TO KOLLAPSNIK.COM
