• 0 Posts
  • 679 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle







  • As a foreign born person, now living in Australia with Australian citizenship, Australia has undoubted racism, including casual racism, institutional racism and blatant bigotry. However, viokent hate crimes are much more rare. Australians are generally welcoming, even to those they hold outdated racist views against. Its not people in masks lighting crosses on lawns. Its people being friendly with foreigners at work but never making friends with them, despite doing the same with white coworkers. Its having neoghbours whobyou are friendly with and borrow tools from each other but still roll your eyes as they dont eat bacon, son you couldn’t possibly invite them over for a barbecue as your potato salad has bacon bits on top. Its denying original Australians a voice in the Parliament.

    However, China has a much bigger problem with racism where there is purposeful genocide. However, China’s criticism rings true, because it is.

    Australia can and will do better as most peopke dont want to be racist. There is a fringe far right element, like most western countries but its not the norm. I thibknchina will also do better as their exposure to other cultures and peoples increases.





  • Not really. As vice president her role is to follow the administration and donbidens plans, but not unquestioningly. As a candidate, she should have her own vision.

    Shes more responsible than someone outside the administration but shes not the administration on her own. So even if there were minor tweaks that were inconsequential to you or any major issues, it wouldn’t be performative but perfectly normal.

    I would expect her platform to also not undermine her current role, or shed have to leave. If she plans major changes, she should announce them before election but that doesn’t mean she needs to announce things that aren’t election issues, unless she chooses to This is perfectly normal whether you agree with her or Biden or neither or both. To paint it as unusual is performative on your part, not hers.







  • Ramping up production didn’t reduce demand. Demand reduced due to a softening Chinese economy, mainly due to debt and housing.

    I agree, it’s not excess supply when you can sell it overseas. However, its also not central planning when you wanted to Ramp up supply for domestic consumption but end up using capitalism to keep efficiencies.

    Companies ramp down production all the time. What do you think redundancies and factory closures are for? They react to market conditions or seek new markets (as happened in this case).

    I thinknyouve got it backwards. Central planning can efficiently produce anything. As in, it can make as much of a product at the cheapest price as possible. The problem is central planning is less efficient at deciding how much is needed. It will often over or undershoot. Thats what happened here. Tonsaybthey can still sell overseas, so its still central planning being efficient is incorrect. Central planning didn’t work to produce the needed amount so trade through capitalism is being used to improve efficiency of the capital used.