The discussion begins with an overview of China's significant contribution to global economic growth, accounting for approximately 30 percent of this growth over the past two decades.
Despite this contribution, there are prevalent narratives in Western media predicting an imminent collapse of the Chinese economy, which the discussion seeks to address.
A prominent claim is that China is stifling its private sector and stalling on reforms, particularly following a significant meeting of the Chinese Communist Party that outlined a five-year reform agenda.
Criticism from various sources, including the Financial Times and the Atlantic Council, suggests that China's economic reforms are reaching a standstill, which Professor Jeffrey Sachs aims to counter.
Analysis of Reform Stagnation Claims
Professor Sachs presents a contrasting view, asserting that China is successfully innovating and excelling in new technologies, particularly in zero-carbon energy systems, renewables, and advanced rail systems.
He highlights China's advancements in 5.5G technology, which is significantly faster than previous generations, showcasing the country's rapid technological progress.
Sachs argues that the narrative of China's imminent collapse is rooted in long-standing Western propaganda, pointing out that similar claims have persisted since the 1990s.
He emphasizes that the real concern for the United States has been China's overcapacity in industries essential for future technologies, which the U.S. perceives as a threat.
Global Industrial Policy Landscape
Sachs discusses the current global landscape of industrial policy, noting that major regions like the U.S., Europe, and China are all adapting to rapid technological changes, including AI and green technologies.
He identifies China's industrial policy, particularly the "Made in China 2025" initiative, as highly sophisticated and successful, contributing to fears in the U.S. about China's technological capabilities.
The U.S. has employed containment strategies against China, including tariffs and export bans, which Sachs considers illegal under international trade agreements.
Despite these challenges, Sachs maintains that China continues to grow and innovate, countering the narrative of economic decline.
Fundamentals of the Chinese Economy
Sachs asserts that the fundamental indicators of the Chinese economy remain strong, including a high saving rate, robust education systems, and rapid innovation.
He contrasts this with the U.S. economy, which faces low savings rates, high budget deficits, and economic instability.
Sachs praises China's strategic investments, particularly through the Belt and Road Initiative, which enhances trade relationships and infrastructure development in various regions.
He argues that the perception of China being in an economic crisis is misguided, given its significant trade surplus compared to the U.S. trade deficit.
Critique of Superficial Economic Indicators
The discussion addresses superficial indicators used by mainstream media to portray a negative image of the Chinese economy, such as declines in foreign direct investment and demographic challenges.
Sachs refutes comparisons to Japan's economic trajectory in the 1980s, arguing that U.S. policies deliberately slowed Japan's growth, a strategy now applied to China.
He emphasizes that China's larger size and diverse alternatives make it less vulnerable to the same pressures faced by Japan.
Sachs advocates for China's continued expansion of its global market presence, particularly through initiatives like the Belt and Road, which counteract negative external pressures.
Challenges Identified by Chinese Leadership
Sachs acknowledges a recent editorial from the People's Daily that outlines four major challenges facing the Chinese economy, including complex external environments, weak domestic demand, operational difficulties, and risks from local government debts.
He connects these challenges to the overarching influence of U.S. policies aimed at containing China, which exacerbate economic difficulties.
Sachs suggests that China should focus on boosting domestic demand and expanding exports to emerging markets to mitigate these challenges.
He recommends increasing public investments in green and digital transformations rather than providing direct cash handouts to stimulate the economy.
Conclusion and Future Outlook
Sachs concludes that recent indicators, such as rising manufacturing purchasing managers' indexes and retail sales, suggest a nuanced recovery in the Chinese economy.
He remains optimistic about China's potential to meet its growth targets and continue its trajectory of innovation and development.
The discussion ends with a call for a more informed understanding of the complexities of the Chinese economy, emphasizing the need for accurate reporting and analysis.
The whole point of my post was to say that no, there is no such thing as “subjective experiences” because experiences are not products of the subject.
I mean we all obviously have a qualia of experience. That's not really in question. What's in question is whether it's a product of the physical world or not.
Perspectives are defined according to an object used as their basis, and so it definitionally would not make sense for one object to adopt the perspective of another, because doing so would require it to become that other object, and thus would cease to be itself any longer.
That's not true. Let's say we develop technology that allows us to connect two brains together. This isn't purely hypothetical as there are cases of siamese twins who report having such shared experience.
There is no “consciousness,” you have not established that there is, and so your “solutions” are not justified either. That was basically the whole point of my original comment. There is no convincing justification for such a dualistic split in the first place, so all these “solutions” are also unnecessary.
I don't see consciousness as a dualistic split. I see it as an emergent phenomena that arises from the chatter of neurons within the brain. Much the same way a virtual world in a video game can be created from the underlying computation performed on a computer chip.
They do not fundamentally occupy any sort of different realm than any other kind of object that demands a separate explanation.
Again, I'm not suggesting that there is any separate realm. I'm arguing against such notion.
Objects are socially constructed norms which only have ontological reality in how they are applied in a social setting, and do not have autonomous existence inside of brains.
I disagree here. The primary purpose of the brain is to create a simulation of the world that can be used to extrapolate into the future to facilitate decision making. The objects are a part of the model the brain constructs, and that's the basis for social interactions. These would not be possible in the first place without our brains having a common internal representation of the world around us.
I'm familiar with Wittgenstein, but I don't agree with all of his ideas. He also also been demonstrably wrong on a grand scale with Principia Mathematica where he tried to show that formal systems can be proven to be self consistent. This whole notion was shown to be fundamentally misguided by Gödel.
Yes, you've accurately summarized the issue. We possess subjective experiences or "qualia," which are inherent to our individual consciousness and cannot be directly communicated or proven in others. This makes it impossible for us to confirm whether another being also has qualia, as it remains an internal property of their experience that is uniquely personal and not sharable with others.
In the absence of concrete proof, we are left with two fundamental assumptions regarding the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world. One perspective, dualism, posits that qualia or subjective experiences originate from a separate, non-physical realm distinct from the material reality we perceive. Conversely, materialism proposes that qualia is derived from physical processes within our brain and body, suggesting they should be understood as emergent properties of neural activity rather than supernatural phenomena.
In my view, dualism lacks any further explanatory value when compared to materialism. Given that it necessitates additional assumptions that require further justification, I find it more reasonable to consider qualia as an emergent property of the physical system in which our minds are a product. This perspective allows for a more straightforward explanation of consciousness and subjective experience within the framework of known physical laws and principles.
I would propose taking this argument even further by suggesting that many of the distinctions we make, such as differentiating between inorganic and organic realms or physical and mental domains, are fundamentally arbitrary constructs created by our minds to simplify complex phenomena. While these categories can be useful for comprehension, it's important to remember that they are simply abstract constructs and not inherently reflective of an underlying reality. In essence, the world operates as a continuum of dynamic patterns, with each layer representing an emergent property of the one beneath it.
Yeah that could be cute, I find for a lot of use cases bandwidth isn't that big of a deal in practice. For example, if you just want to stream media then you can load it up on the drive up front.
Same here, I tend to go for indie games just cause I know I have a good chance of actually finishing them. I really love games like Portal and Viewfinder. Portal Revolution was pretty amazing incidentally.
turns out they had clones ready to churn out