Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: mankind on August 08, 2021, 06:38:17 AM
-
Finally the US is waking up to the reality that China is outcompeting us and will soon eat our dinner after its pretty much done eating our lunch. The US is realizing that propaganda alone is not going to cut it against China and investments have to be done. While the US spend trillions fighting men in sandals for 20 years, China has poured more concrete than probably the whole world combined.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/07/biden-infrastructure-bill-message-china-502739
-
Yes they are waking up
-
Finally the US is waking up to the reality that China is outcompeting us and will soon eat our dinner after its pretty much done eating our lunch. The US is realizing that propaganda alone is not going to cut it against China and investments have to be done. While the US spend trillions fighting men in sandals for 20 years, China has poured more concrete than probably the whole world combined.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/07/biden-infrastructure-bill-message-china-502739
Stupid propaganda. China pouring more concrete doesn't mean progress, building endless ugly concrete commie blocks on credit doesn't signify anything. China is destroying its urban built environment through its thoughtless building craze leading to ghost cities with no inhabitants. The pollution is ungodly. America maybe fucked up but China is ten times worse. China eating our lunch trope is a useful tool for Biden and big government lovers to engage in fiscally irresponsible infrastructure splurge. You wanna stop China's arrogant behavior supercharge Trump's policy of economic disengagement/disentanglement, what is feeding the CCP hubris is economic boost they get from US exports.
-
Unfortunately you've been fed so much anti Chinese propaganda to even appreciate an obvious fact. Despite what you wrote which has some truth to it the facts on that article speak for themselves. Give us a reference to counter them instead of resorting to the usual dismissive attitude that got the west having to play catch up. What would you rather we spend money on? The military that spends more than the next 10 countries combined has been fighting men in sack clothes and sandals for 20 years and still sneaked out at night from Bagram airbase. Just a few days ago I saw the taliban riding in American humvees.It is becoming obvious to any pragmatic person that today China is becoming known for infrastructure around the world while we in America are known for military adventures.
-
Some year back I posted Putins Speech on Americas preference of a Uni Polar World vis a vis a Multi-Polar world which is not sustainable .
https://jukwaa.proboards.com/thread/8979/ukraine-crisis-putins-end-game?page=2
2007- PUTINS SPEECH EXPOSING NWO
Thank you very much dear madam federal chancellor .I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians , military officials , entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 Nations .This conferences structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout pleasant but empty diplomatic terms .
This conferences format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems and if my comments seem unduly polemical pointed or inexact to our colleagues then I would ask not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there .(laughter)
Therefore .It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilizations.
This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all” As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days when the Second World War was breaking out “ When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger .“ These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference: Global crisis, Global responsibility: exemplifies this.
Only tow decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security. This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community and the worlds agenda. And, just like any war the Cold War left us with live ammunition figuratively speaking. I’m referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War block thinking.
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seems aspirations to world supremacy and what hasn’t happened in world history? However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. It is world in which there is one master , one sovereign and at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system ,but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within .
This certainly has nothing in common with democracy , because as you know , democracy is the power of the majority in the light of the interests and opinions of the minority .Incidentally it is being told that , Russia – we are- constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world and this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – World, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.
Along with this, what is happening in today’s world and we just started to discuss this is a tentative o intrude precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world. : The Concept of a unipolar world: And with which results? Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems moreover; they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge yourselves: Wars as well-as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before, significantly more, significantly more and more.
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force –military force- in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to ones states legal system. One state and of course , first and foremost the UNITED STATES has overstepped its national borders in every way in the economic , political , cultural and educational policies it imposes in other nations. Well , who likes this ? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so called issues of political expediency based on the current political climate and of course this is extremely dangerous which results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this no one feels safe!! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race. The forces dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover , significantly new threats thought they were also well known before , have appeared and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.
Im convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security .An we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of a participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly –changes in light of the dynamic development Madam Federal Chancellor Merkell already mentioned this. The combined GDP measure in purchasing power parity of countries such as INDIA AND CHINA is already grated than that of the UNITED STATES and a similar calculation with the DGP of the BRIC countries -BRAZIL , RUSSIA , INDIA AND CHINA – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future. There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centers of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity . In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and use of force should be a really exceptional measure , comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial system of certain states.
However , today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murders and other , dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that ate difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people hundreds and thousands of civilians!!! But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As a matter of fact , this was a;so at the centre of the question that our dear colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal Chancellor Merkel . If I correctly understood your question, then of course it is a serious one!
Can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well: of course not. But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Didn’t our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destructions we do not have enough political culture? Respect for democratic values and for the law ? Im convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleagues, the Italian Defense Minister just said or what he said was inexact . In any case I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU , or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didn’t hear correctly.
The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by UN and we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied .Along with this , it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms. And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and a laborious decision making process.
Dear ladies and gentlemen. The potential danger of the destabilization of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue. Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question. It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons. Together with the UNITED STATES we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31-December-2012, Russia intends to strictly fulfill the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and we will refrain from layin aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in a warehouse or as one might say under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.
Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones. In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement o destroying a whole range of small and medium range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character. Today many of the countries have these missiles, Including the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India , Iran , Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons and only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems. It is obvious that these conditions we must think about enduring our own security. At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilizing high tech weapons .Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially I outer space . Star wars is no longer a fantasy 0 it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980S our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite. In Russia’s opinion, the militarization of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space.
-
CONT
Today I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space an in the near future it will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let’s work on this together. Plans to expand certain elements of the ant-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who need the next step of what would be ,in this case an inevitable arms race ? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do , Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand Kilometers that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of , for example ,a North Korean rocket to American territory through Western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear. And here In Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
The adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw block .Seven ear have passed and only four states have ratified this document including the Russian Federation. NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones ), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues , as everybody knows. There are still 1500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peace keeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction. But what is happening at the same time ? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases appear in Bulgaria and Romania with upto 5000 me each.
It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react or these actions at all . I thin it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security I Europe. On the contrary , it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.
And we have the right to ask : against whom is this expansion intended ? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw pact? Where are those declarations today? NATO /US/ EU don’t even remember them but I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17-May-1990 he said the following “the fact that we are ready to place a NATO army outside of the Germany territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee” where are these guarantees The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs but we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice –one that was also made by our people , the people of Russia- a choice in favor of democracy , freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family. And now the are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require may years and decades as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls ?
Dear ladies and gentlemen. We are unequivocally in favor of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes .And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons. This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar destabilizing crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both Know this.
We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres for the enrichment of uranium .We are only hoping on the possibility that such centres not only be created in Russia but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy . Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these centres. And the centres would of course operate under strict IAEA supervision.
The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals . I consider that USA and RUSSIA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment .It is precisely our countries with leading nuclear and missile capabilities that must act as leaders in developing new stricter non –proliferation measures .Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations worth our American friends. In general we should talk about establishing a whole system of political incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop unclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities
In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation n more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly She mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all . It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail. We are open to cooperation Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects, According to different estimates , up to 26& of the oil extraction in Russia –and please think about this figure – up to 26 % of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in Key economic sectors in western countries .Such examples do not exist .There are no such examples
I would also recall the parity of foreign investment in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stabily of the Russian economy .
Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly. For that reason more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy .Experts and our western partners are objectively evaluating these changes. As such , Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision. Further as you know the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages .I would point out that during long difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech , free trade and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason , exclusively in reference to Russian market .And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security.
Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere ? On the one hand , financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the Worlds poorest countries and a times substantial financial resources . But to be honest and many here also know this-linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies and on the other hand developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries access to high-tech products . And lets say things as they are one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof .The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results In the growth of Radicalism, extremism , feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in , shall we say, where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair then there is the risk of global destabilization . It is obvious that the worlds leading countries should see this threat and that they should therefore build a more democratic fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and possibility to develop
Dear ladies and Gentlemen speaking at the conference on Security policy, it is imposible not to mention the activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As is well known this organization was created to examine all I shall emphasize this all aspects of security : military political economic , humanitarian and especially , the relations between these spheres what do we happening today we see that this balance is clearly destroyed .People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries .And this task is also being accomplished by the OSCES bureaucratic apparatus which is absolutely not connected with the state founders in any way . Decision making procedures and the involvement of so called non governmental organizations are tailored for this task. These organizations are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control.
According to the founding documents in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop. It is obvious that such interferences do promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary it makes them dependent and as a consequence, politically and economically unstable. We expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary tasks and build relations with sovereign states based on respect trust and transparency.
Dear ladies and gentlemen In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often –hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in World affairs . In connection wit this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so . Russia is a country with a history that spans more that a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy. We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with also independent and responsible partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few but for all. Thank you for your attention.
-
Unfortunately you've been fed so much anti Chinese propaganda to even appreciate an obvious fact. Despite what you wrote which has some truth to it the facts on that article speak for themselves. Give us a reference to counter them instead of resorting to the usual dismissive attitude that got the west having to play catch up. What would you rather we spend money on? The military that spends more than the next 10 countries combined has been fighting men in sack clothes and sandals for 20 years and still sneaked out at night from Bagram airbase. Just a few days ago I saw the taliban riding in American humvees.It is becoming obvious to any pragmatic person that today China is becoming known for infrastructure around the world while we in America are known for military adventures.
American military adventurism abroad is dumb and criminal obviously. This article however is drumming up support for Biden's infrastructure plan using patriotic anti China fear mongering. I don't support Federal infrastructure spending, Obama tried it and failed miserably, Obamacare failed also.
The federal government already intervenes heavily in infrastructure through spending, regulations, and taxes, and all three levers distort investment. Biden would ratchet up the use of each lever and further reduce the role of markets in guiding infrastructure investment.
-
Unfortunately you've been fed so much anti Chinese propaganda to even appreciate an obvious fact. Despite what you wrote which has some truth to it the facts on that article speak for themselves. Give us a reference to counter them instead of resorting to the usual dismissive attitude that got the west having to play catch up. What would you rather we spend money on? The military that spends more than the next 10 countries combined has been fighting men in sack clothes and sandals for 20 years and still sneaked out at night from Bagram airbase. Just a few days ago I saw the taliban riding in American humvees.It is becoming obvious to any pragmatic person that today China is becoming known for infrastructure around the world while we in America are known for military adventures.
American military adventurism abroad is dumb and criminal obviously. This article however is drumming up support for Biden's infrastructure plan using patriotic anti China fear mongering. I don't support Federal infrastructure spending, Obama tried it and failed miserably, Obamacare failed also.
The federal government already intervenes heavily in infrastructure through spending, regulations, and taxes, and all three levers distort investment. Biden would ratchet up the use of each lever and further reduce the role of markets in guiding infrastructure investment.
So the Senate did a thing yesterday, passing a landmark $1 trillion infrastructure bill that will fund everything from roads and bridges to broadband networks and EV charging stations.
We say $1 trillion, but new spending accounts for $550 billion of the package, while the rest is previously approved funding. The legislation will move to the House next, where it could face some challenges.
Why it matters: Infrastructure is the rhythm section to the economy’s sax solo. Without smooth highways, good luck getting an Amazon package in two days. And, as we all learned over the last 18 months, a modern workforce can’t function without access to high-speed, reliable broadband.
This bill, which had support from all 50 Democratic senators and 19 Republicans, represents the biggest investment in US infrastructure in decades.
3 things to know about US infrastructure spending
It peaked with the New Deal: During the Great Depression in 1933, the federal government spent 2.96% of US GDP on infrastructure, and we haven’t hit that mark since. To reach those heights, according to Brookings, the US would need to spend $4 trillion over a decade, or roughly what it spends annually on national defense. This infrastructure bill won’t do that.
Most infrastructure investments are not made by the federal government. State and local governments accounted for nearly 78% of all US public infrastructure spending in 2017. The idea is that local governments are more responsive to local needs; however, they’re often strapped for funds.
We lag behind other wealthy countries: The US spent 0.55% of its GDP investing in inland infrastructure in 2019, putting it behind peers like the UK (0.91%) and Japan (0.94%), and way behind China (5.56%), per the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bottom line: With this infrastructure package, the Biden administration is trying to reassert the federal government’s role in public works spending. And while it’s not a New Deal, it is a big deal.
-
This was long overdue. Everyone knows US infrastructure is crumbling. Infrastructure is no 2 job of the gov after security. China is building bullet rails and US is stuck with 1950s expressways.
By now US should have bullet trains if the money wasted in military adventures abroad was invested. Instead of getting stuck in California - you could live anyway - get into a bullet train - and be anywhere in an hour
Private sector will never fund railways - or such infra - it won't make a profit.
China building 600kms per hour train- which could travel US east and west cost - maybe in 5 hours.
-
in 1998 - China had no motorways (expressway) - now it's 84,000kms and adding 6,000kms per annum. US is waking up to find China is becoming the Next World in infrastructure.
US is actually below many countries - rickety rails
-
This was long overdue. Everyone knows US infrastructure is crumbling. Infrastructure is no 2 job of the gov after security. China is building bullet rails and US is stuck with 1950s expressways.
By now US should have bullet trains if the money wasted in military adventures abroad was invested. Instead of getting stuck in California - you could live anyway - get into a bullet train - and be anywhere in an hour
Private sector will never fund railways - or such infra - it won't make a profit.
China building 600kms per hour train- which could travel US east and west cost - maybe in 5 hours.
You could argue if it doesn't make profit it shouldn't be built. Profit is a signal for viability, otherwise you end up with SGR dodo or our former railways - useless colonial relic.
-
Doe the fiber optical cables that carries internet make as much profit as internet - of course not. But without the fiber optical cable - there would be no facebook or google or these trillion dollar industries. If private sector is allowed to lay it - it will never lay it in unprofitable areas.
Gov is NON-Profit. If we wanted to maximize profit - we would go back to Darwinian existence - survival for the fittest/strongest/most profitable.
Gov provide security, military deterrence, infrastructure and all these non-profit making things that allow individuals and private sector to profit from it - and then pay taxes.
Or let say gov profit is not in monetary terms - it count profit in having cohesive, secure and safe communities.
If gov built a bullet train - it doesnt have to turn profit for 100 yrs - but the time savings, the fuel savings, the less accidents, the comfort for its citizen - that is the real profit.
US has spent 1 trillion dollars in Afgan - fighting - if it look at it form profit-loss - it would never have engaged.
Anyway bottomline - US infrastructure is so 1950s - countries like China are building next generation infrastructure - making life for Chinese better than the US.
While you have to live 150kms and commute with you car - a chinese get into a bullet train - and is at office 20mins later - living in the same distance. In fact another decade - the only thing you have better than chinese - is the freedom to insult politicians
You could argue if it doesn't make profit it shouldn't be built. Profit is a signal for viability, otherwise you end up with SGR dodo or our former railways - useless colonial relic.
-
Doe the fiber optical cables that carries internet make as much profit as internet - of course not. But without the fiber optical cable - there would be no facebook or google or these trillion dollar industries. If private sector is allowed to lay it - it will never lay it in unprofitable areas.
Gov is NON-Profit. If we wanted to maximize profit - we would go back to Darwinian existence - survival for the fittest/strongest/most profitable.
Gov provide security, military deterrence, infrastructure and all these non-profit making things that allow individuals and private sector to profit from it - and then pay taxes.
Or let say gov profit is not in monetary terms - it count profit in having cohesive, secure and safe communities.
If gov built a bullet train - it doesnt have to turn profit for 100 yrs - but the time savings, the fuel savings, the less accidents, the comfort for its citizen - that is the real profit.
US has spent 1 trillion dollars in Afgan - fighting - if it look at it form profit-loss - it would never have engaged.
Anyway bottomline - US infrastructure is so 1950s - countries like China are building next generation infrastructure - making life for Chinese better than the US.
While you have to live 150kms and commute with you car - a chinese get into a bullet train - and is at office 20mins later - living in the same distance. In fact another decade - the only thing you have better than chinese - is the freedom to insult politicians
Governments esp Western ones build undersea fiber optic cables more for eavesdropping not altruism, private companies used to lay telegraphic lines across the Atlantic so it can be done without government. Fiber optic cables are profitable on their own without government subsidies unlike stupid trains you are so fond of.
I need to educate your primitive mind, first of all governments don't make money, they confiscate it from us by force. Government should only do THREE things: Military, Police, and the courts to protect citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud, and to enforce property laws. Hayo tu, otherwise it is an invitation to characters like Ruto and Uhuru to decide the winners and losers in the market place and you end up with endless grand corruption, impoverishment and no progress. Get serikali out of business altogether and you end up with clean government. Simple.
America DOESN'T NOT NEED BULLET TRAINS, :D planes are much more cost effective. Why you waste days on rail when you can go coast to coast in hours :D Common sense
US infrastructure is actually superb for the most part don't listen to naysayers, parrots, big government big deficit loving liberals and cronies. What America needs is to come up with ways to make users pay for the infrastracture they use, right now they tax gasoline but with electric cars coming up it doesn't make sense. A mileage based user fees would be the best idea.
-
Doe the fiber optical cables that carries internet make as much profit as internet - of course not. But without the fiber optical cable - there would be no facebook or google or these trillion dollar industries. If private sector is allowed to lay it - it will never lay it in unprofitable areas.
Gov is NON-Profit. If we wanted to maximize profit - we would go back to Darwinian existence - survival for the fittest/strongest/most profitable.
Gov provide security, military deterrence, infrastructure and all these non-profit making things that allow individuals and private sector to profit from it - and then pay taxes.
Or let say gov profit is not in monetary terms - it count profit in having cohesive, secure and safe communities.
If gov built a bullet train - it doesnt have to turn profit for 100 yrs - but the time savings, the fuel savings, the less accidents, the comfort for its citizen - that is the real profit.
US has spent 1 trillion dollars in Afgan - fighting - if it look at it form profit-loss - it would never have engaged.
Anyway bottomline - US infrastructure is so 1950s - countries like China are building next generation infrastructure - making life for Chinese better than the US.
While you have to live 150kms and commute with you car - a chinese get into a bullet train - and is at office 20mins later - living in the same distance. In fact another decade - the only thing you have better than chinese - is the freedom to insult politicians
Governments esp Western ones build undersea fiber optic cables more for eavesdropping not altruism, private companies used to lay telegraphic lines across the Atlantic so it can be done without government. Fiber optic cables are profitable on their own without government subsidies unlike stupid trains you are so fond of.
I need to educate your primitive mind, first of all governments don't make money, they confiscate it from us by force. Government should only do THREE things: Military, Police, and the courts to protect citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud, and to enforce property laws. Hayo tu, otherwise it is an invitation to characters like Ruto and Uhuru to decide the winners and losers in the market place and you end up with endless grand corruption, impoverishment and no progress. Get serikali out of business altogether and you end up with clean government. Simple.
America DOESN'T NOT NEED BULLET TRAINS, :D planes are much more cost effective. Why you waste days on rail when you can go coast to coast in hours :D Common sense
US infrastructure is actually superb for the most part don't listen to naysayers, parrots, big government big deficit loving liberals and cronies. What America needs is to come up with ways to make users pay for the infrastracture they use, right now they tax gasoline but with electric cars coming up it doesn't make sense. A mileage based user fees would be the best idea.
confirmed nutcase sloganeering without thinking..gov job is to provide basic infrastructure like airports then you can buy your plane... railway..roads..fiber optic..water.. sewage... otherwise if you want everyone to create their own that would chaos.Typical ojinga moron that dominates our slums with retrogressive thinking
-
confirmed nutcase sloganeering without thinking..gov job is to provide basic infrastructure like airports then you can buy your plane... railway..roads..fiber optic..water.. sewage... otherwise if you want everyone to create their own that would chaos.Typical ojinga moron that dominates our slums with retrogressive thinking
Luo bashing has now become de rigueur for you? You are Kale for heavens sake, super ugly soot black alien looking mudafaka.
What can I say, I'm a small government conservative/libertarian you are a big government statist. We can't see eye to eye.
-
Luo callng kale ugly is really funny - youre the ugliest of them all; big head;big lips; big wide nose; soot black; the poorest; of them all; infact for kalenjin to date a luo girl is considered abomination;at least kalenjin have 50-70 percent cushitic blood; but a pure negroid like jaluo; pleeeeeeeeease;
Youre just sloganeering writing nonsense.
Luo bashing has now become de rigueur for you? You are Kale for heavens sake, super ugly soot black alien looking mudafaka.
What can I say, I'm a small government conservative/libertarian you are a big government statist. We can't see eye to eye.
-
It has reached this level. Truth you are black and black is beauty.
Keep it politics . Such type of bile is unwarranted
Luo callng kale ugly is really funny - youre the ugliest of them all; big head;big lips; big wide nose; soot black; the poorest; of them all; infact for kalenjin to date a luo girl is considered abomination;at least kalenjin have 50-70 percent cushitic blood; but a pure negroid like jaluo; pleeeeeeeeease;
Youre just sloganeering writing nonsense.
Luo bashing has now become de rigueur for you? You are Kale for heavens sake, super ugly soot black alien looking mudafaka.
What can I say, I'm a small government conservative/libertarian you are a big government statist. We can't see eye to eye.
-
I dont need any validation; she was rejected and dumped by her kipsigis boyfriend; for being unworthy; so this long feud of hers; we gotta deal with it.
It has reached this level. Truth you are black and black is beauty.
Keep it politics . Such type of bile is unwarranted
-
Luo callng kale ugly is really funny - youre the ugliest of them all; big head;big lips; big wide nose; soot black; the poorest; of them all; infact for kalenjin to date a luo girl is considered abomination;at least kalenjin have 50-70 percent cushitic blood; but a pure negroid like jaluo; pleeeeeeeeease;
Youre just sloganeering writing nonsense.
:D :D
What a bloody racist, so now negroid is an insult? maajabu ya dunia.
You sound like that dave chappelle character - the black racist. Bure sana wewe
I'm a man for the record, wacha usenge ya kuniita mke.
-
Why would a Luo - a pure nilote call a Kalenjin - black; You're more black than average Kalenjin; coz you're 50-70 percent Nilote; Kalenjin are like 25-50 percent Nilote.There is nothing wrong with black - or negroid - but if you want to start talking about ugly - you're most welcome.
:D :D
What a bloody racist, so now negroid is an insult? maajabu ya dunia.
You sound like that dave chappelle character - the black racist. Bure sana wewe
I'm a man for the record, wacha usenge ya kuniita mke.
-
You two people neer to stop the insults . If you are well travelled you would realise how africans are streotyped and you are here calling each other ugly , black negroid.
If its about Ruto and Raila keep it at that. Personally I hate it when I see blacks going at each others with such type of slurs.
Call Ruto and Raila names but not the black race.