Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Chinahand last won the day on April 12 2020

Chinahand had the most liked content!


About Chinahand

  • Birthday 07/12/2005

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    IOM, but then again ... could be China

Recent Profile Visitors

32,180 profile views

Chinahand's Achievements


Proficient (10/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post

Recent Badges



  1. Colin Powell too. It is a recognised sociological issue that immigrants of African heritage are doing better than Americans of African heritage. Though Condoleezza Rice is an exception.
  2. Just Stop Oil are one of a few organisations which if they immediately achieved their political goals a billion people could die.
  3. I'm going to guess that Antoinette Copas is a robot. With no understanding of Random Stuff and a ChatGPTesque way of padding language which lands right in the middle of the uncanny valley. Wonder if it will play and how long before it posts links to some strange part of the internet!
  4. HeliX, you are posting claims that Trump is a paedophile??
  5. And who created that environment? This isn't the time for finger pointing. It is a time to understand people's commonalities dwarf their differences and democratic constitution means exist to allow policy making which can change and adjust over political cycles. Violence is not going to achieve this and will simply increase reactionary and tribal behaviours. Political violence within a constitutional democracy is wrong. Full stop. No ifs buts or finger pointing. Let emotions calm, look to your own behaviour and how you can contribute to creating a better political environment. Don't enable or justify those who seek to use violence.
  6. The attempted assassination of Trump is a heinous crime. The whole point of constitutional democratic politics is that policy changes cannot be too radical because of checks and balances and can be reversed by future administrations if that is the democratic will. Political violence destroys the trust that the system requires. American is too tribal and is losing the ability to trust across the political aisle. Political violence will only further diminish it. It is incredibly sad this is the state the US has come to. Everyone who hopes for constitutional democratic governance should condemn what has happened and dial down the polarising tribal violent political rhetoric.
  7. And which is more expensive in blood and treasure an occupation fighting an insurgency or conventional warfare? Putin's options are to climb down and retreat or the huge cost of continuing warfare or if he breaks through an on going insurgency. Sinking into a swamp of occupation and insurgency is Putin's cheap option. His current conventional war is far more expensive.
  8. Could Afghanistan overcome the Soviet Union? and then the US? Could Vietnam overcome the USA? Could Iraq overcome the USA? Many a larger power has wasted its blood and treasure and retreated. What makes things so different this time?
  9. P.K. he's saying you are a typical Grauniad obsessive and La Colombe is trapped in the twitter echo chamber. It's not that inaccurate a caricature! The Grauniad has a sneering quality I have a difficulty with.
  10. I am still conflicted about this. This from the Institute for Fiscal Studies is a good introduction to some of the issues: The UK definitely has a problem with inequality - mainly due to the madness in the housing market and the total abject failure of the Tories to take on NIMBYs resulting in the young being excluded from the housing gains the old have benefited from. But generally I don't think the increased competition globalisation has brought has overall greatly increased inequality - it has also brought increased productivity and innovation which has benefited populations more. I'm conflicted by this as it is a huge meme that inequality has increased, but I'm not convinced the evidence proves it. And I'd appreciate other's views and evidence. In the UK the Equality Trust doesn't show large increases at all over the last 20 years: https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequality-uk/ The bottom 50% earned 20.5% of income in 1940, the earn 20.4% today. The World Bank tracks the situation globally: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/inside-the-world-bank-s-new-inequality-indicator--the-number-of- It shows a reduction in countries with high inequality: Gapminder still shows the proportion of the world living in abject poverty reducing: https://upgrader.gapminder.org/q/21/explanation The Economist has tracked things over generations: My view is uncertainty has increased, but overall wealth generation has continued. Putting up trade barriers, using politicians to pick winners (Industrial policies) and shutting down the incredible international supply chains which provide everything from trainers, prawns and ipads isn't a way to enrich people. Of course globalisation wasn't undertaken to reduce inequality. It was done to enrich shareholders and the executives who manage the companies they own, but there is a lot of evidence and theory behind the idea that being open to trade and international investments is a way to create wealth for all members of a population. I, for one, see the closing of trade and the replacement of hard nosed fund managers by the government's Industrial Policy Committee as a way of allocating capital deeply concerning, but I seem very much in the minority for thinking this. Edited to add another example from Carpe Diem: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-middle-class-is-prospering/
  11. Can you provide specifics. What things have expert scientists been getting massively wrong for decades? Come Stu, you KNOW expert scientists have been getting things massively wrong for decades ... wow quite a claim. Time for some details, methinks. What's you top 3?
  12. That, Wrighty, gets us into the nitty gritty of politics far closer to practical reality than my ivory tower waffle! and I totally agree with you. Boris was a brilliant cavalier campaigner, but Covid required the puritan discipline of a roundhead, something he was entirely unsuitable to being. While Liz Truss ... oh goodness, what can I say. Ideologically blind and tin-eared in her rush to bring in libertarian ideology in over the heads of liberal orthodox civil servants mandated to review the consequences of her policies. With terrible consequences as the markets reacted to her pushing through uncosted policies. Indiscipline and ideology wrecked the reputation of the Tories and Sunak's orthodox neo-liberalism (very very close to my political bias) stood no chance against Reform's xenophobia blaming the outsider for ruining dear Blighty and the Liberal Democrat's Europhile logic that it is damaging to isolate yourself from your largest and nearest market. Of the 4 segements of the Tory party one quarter split to the Lib Dems and one quarter to Reform with the result close to 50% of its vote abandoned it.
  13. Autocracy is evil. War is evil. Those who start wars are evil. Sovereignty is synthesized via multiple imagined communities democratically and constitutionally exploring political options and those who autocratically stamp on that truth are far more likely to autocratically start wars with all the horrors that involves. Putin is evil, Hamas is evil. War is evil. Pity the world.
  14. Ho hum ... what to think about the state of UK politics after this election campaign and vote? Below is a typical TLDR post by Chinahand, and it might be only the 1st of a series!! I've always been basically a liberal internationalist. I'm in awe of the huge chains of networked trust which criss-cross the globe based on 30-90 days of credit and overlapping contracts pulling in hugely diverse stakeholders to provide people everything from prawn sandwiches for their lunch, to kettles in their flat-pack kitchens, to cars and computers containing rare-earth metals and code coded anywhere from Silicon Valley to Bangalore. The state is a vital component of these networks - underpinning contracts, providing stability both internally and internationally, and the basic infrastructure and education to allow employers and employees exchange skills for a stable currency. The state can't keep the world out; can't demand people are paid beyond their productivity; is unlikely to make companies innovative by coddling them with subsidies or using tariffs to force their citizens to pay more for cheaper products from abroad. But politics really matters. To be parochial, Mann is far richer than Ynys Môn because we can use our tax system to attract footloose capital and ideas that would not usually end up on a wind-swept Westerly Isle. States can disrupt or encourage corruption and state capture; can stifle or encourage innovation. All of this makes me centre right; but more a person from anywhere than from somewhere. And that is one way into the nightmare which has just engulfed the Tories. My understanding is that all this international openness, which was the dominant political narrative from the end of the cold war in 1991 to the 2008 financial crisis, has significantly increased competition and a sense of insecurity in not only the UK, but throughout the west. Globalisation is the free movement of ideas, capital and people and all of these have brought competition into people's lives. But my view is that the free movement of people is the most visible of these and the one citizens most expect their states to intervene in to ensure they are not adversely affected by it. I am increasingly frustrated by the shouts that people who want immigration controls and are unhappy about its scale are all racists. My view is that increased competition and a sense of insecurity is a very real thing; most especially after the wave of redundancies and unemployment caused as the Financial crisis merged into the Great Recession and the Euro-crisis. I'm also not surprised at all that this has resulted in people not wanting outsiders coming in, seeing their willingness to accept lower wages and undercutting the locals as being a threat. I don't see the as racism, I see it as, in many ways, a rational reaction to an increased sense of insecurity. Now I'm fascinated that it has been the conservative right which has understood and reacted to this. Conservative, nostalgic, people from somewhere, happy to use patriotism and jingoism to drive their political message. The failure of the political left to provide a left wing narrative against globalisation is interesting, and probably shows the dominance of the ideology of Blair, Clinton and Macron over the likes of Corbyn and France's Melenchon who have both tried and so nearly succeeded in creating it (Corbyn with a bigger vote share than Blairite Starmer, Melanchon winning the latest French election, but without a majority). That failure has allowed the likes of Trump and Farage to create a very powerful political brand that working class Joe has been stiffed by the global elite with the outsider blamed for undermining their security. And it looks like this political rhetoric has successfully split the Tory party, leaving it as a rump split between a populist, xenophobic right poached by Reform and a liberal internationalist (call it European) left poached by the Liberal Democrats. My biggest dilemma is whether they are right! Thoughts?
  15. I personally know geographers, geophysicists and climate scientists who undertake similar work to that documented here https://theconversation.com/alaskas-top-heavy-glaciers-are-approaching-an-irreversible-tipping-point-233811 It's hard challenging work synthesizing and extrapolating complex data sets incorporating moraines, ice thickness, historic climate data and multiple other bits of information, often collected with considerable personal danger to the scientists from cravasses etc. All to be dismissed by the likes of Stu Peters. Ah the arrogance of ignorance.
  • Create New...