How can such a small island be so strong in the technology game?

>japan
>manufacturing
They stopped manufacturing electronics in the 90s. Everything is made in China/Taiwan/Malaysia/etc

>Former Japanese colony
>Escaped Communism
It's Capitalist China + a hint of Japanese work ethic.

I wish Germany would start to build their shit in Germany again but it's all about profit nowadays.

>it's all about profit nowadays
It always was, my dude. The difference is that back then it was still profitable to keep production centers in Germany.

I think it's a mistake from a technological standpoint. By manufacturing everything in China, you are pretty much giving away all your hard-earned secrets for free. Then, after a few years of getting the hang of it, the Chinese will start producing their own version of your tech eventually beat you with experience.

A country should keep production of crucial tech local and limit its sale to international customers.

>you are pretty much giving away all your hard-earned secrets for free
This ignores the existence of intelectual property. While they are busy trying to find a way to copy it without breaking laws, you will have already invented something new.

>A country should keep production of crucial tech local and limit its sale to international customers
This makes sense from the perspective of the state, but not from that of the private sector.

Yeah, because governments used to work in favor of their own peoples and set up tariffs to protect domestic industry.

>This makes sense from the perspective of the state, but not from that of the private sector.
It's the only viable strategy in the long run, ESPECIALLY when it comes to weapons. (Germany is absolutely fucking itself by selling all its best stuff). This current era of open global trade is an historical anomaly and cannot be expected to last forever. Significant wars between major powers cannot be indefinitely avoided. There will come a time when it's no longer possible to build everything in China, and when that day comes (and it will) the west will find itself at a severe disadvantage, at least until it's able to tool up factories again and start training a labor pool.

They're one of the only countries that didn't throw off their colonial overlords and are doing WAY better because of it

Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. Seems like the winning strategy.

Working conditions in Germany when it used to have this type of economic policy were also comparable to those of China, thus allowing for high profits without having to move your stuff to another country.

>This current era of open global trade is an historical anomaly
History evolves. The current state of technology makes global trade very convenient for the private sector.

> when that day comes (and it will) the west will find itself at a severe disadvantage, at least until it's able to tool up factories again and start training a labor pool
Let's hope that day never comes, because if a conflict between big powers happens, I do not know if they will be able to avoid firing the nukes.

It is you mongoloid

When Communism was institutionalized in China the people that decided not to get cucked by leftist ideals moved to that small island and started their own shit from pretty much zero. That's how and that's why the average Chinese fuck nowadays lives in shit housing eating shit contaminated produce with their shit polluted air while the average Taiwan fuck has better living conditions than most Asia and they even buy slaves from other countries to work for them in their houses.

What would it change you spastics?
It will be the same crap like tge chinese one but instead it will be more expensive and build by ahmed

>History evolves.
Not as much as one might think. What we are experiencing at the moment is equivalent to Pax Romana. That came to an end and so will Pax Americana.
>The current state of technology makes global trade very convenient for the private sector.
The private sector getting its way is a luxury of peacetime. In times of war or crisis, the private sector will drop in priority to secondary, tertiary, etc, as the level of crisis increases.
>Let's hope that day never comes
Unfortunately, it's far more likely to happen than not happen. The longer we go with peace, the higher and higher chance there will be of war, and the suffering sustained in said war will grow exponentially with the amount of preceding peace. This is all supported by historical data.
> I do not know if they will be able to avoid firing the nukes.
This is actually not as likely as one might think. Having nukes means that pursuing unconditional surrender as in ww2 will no longer be possible against a nuclear power. In a strange way, it will make wars less bloody as both sides will be more willing to negotiate peace following decisive battles. We would see an era of war more similar to the 17th-early19th centuries. With professional armies by and large avoiding population centers. Lots of wars, but very few decisive ones.

Where are they hiring people from?

Just to iterate on the Nuke thing, having nukes is like having the power to flip the table. Everyone wants to keep playing the game, so they don't want to push anyone to the point where they flip the table. They will still play and compete against each other, but not knock anyone out.

Taiwan IS China
Finland had Nokia even though we're social democrat as fuck. Also, KONE

>Taiwan IS China if China didn't go full retard
ftfy

>Taiwan IS China
This. China is currently occupied by communist bandits. Not a legitimate government.

>What we are experiencing at the moment is equivalent to Pax Romana
Explain yourself.

>The private sector getting its way is a luxury of peacetime
Why do you think war happens if not to bring benefit to the private sector? It is true that during times of war the state has a bigger influence in the economy, but those who motivate and benefit from war are the nation's bigger companies.

>In a strange way, it will make wars less bloody (...) Lots of wars, but very few decisive ones.
Perhaps. They have indeed led to greater peace.

>Finland had Nokia even though we're social democrat as fuck.
One could say they were less social democrat in the past, which is when Nokia was most successful. Now Finland is more social democrat than ever before and Nokia is dead.

It was about profit then, it was just profitable to manufacture at home.
It's great for the customer though
Taiwan is Republic of China. Most recognize People's Republic of China, thanks to One China Policy and that's why we have the term Taiwan
You have no idea what you're talking about, Finland was more social democratic back then, since the 80's it's been more or less being dismantled.

And I don't mean it has been dismantled, but slowly parts of it has been either toned down or removed, following Sweden's example (as we always do)

>Working conditions in Germany when it used to have this type of economic policy were also comparable to those of China, thus allowing for high profits without having to move your stuff to another country.
You idiot, you achieve the exact same thing by implementing tariffs. America had its biggest finacial boom when it had 30% tariffs. Then tariffs were removed and all industry moved to Chyna, and that was the plan from the beginning from the nation wreckers..

>History evolves. The current state of technology makes global trade very convenient for the private sector.
What a silly statement. Tariffs wouldn't decrease any convenience introduced by technology, it would just make it more expensive to trade with foreign goods.

>Explain yourself.
When Rome had subjugated all of the civilized states in Europe, (civilized also = productive/economically viable) There was a period that lasted several centuries where peace was enforced and trade flourished throughout Europe. Even those areas not directly under Rome's control benefited and were able to advance their technological levels through trade with Rome during this time. Eventually Rome's immense technological advantage over her neighbors narrowed to the point where Rome no longer had overwhelming superiority (particularly in the military). When the climate in Northern Europe changed, the newly empowered Germanic tribes were able to migrate/invade south and they were no longer the shirtless fools that Rome had crushed centuries before, now they had all the modern implements of war, just as the Romans did. War hit hard and plunged Europe into chaos as the Roman Empire collapsed. Even states outside of Rome, such as Persia were hit hard by this. There are many connections between the Pax Romana and what we are seeing now.
>Why do you think war happens if not to bring benefit to the private sector? It is true that during times of war the state has a bigger influence in the economy, but those who motivate and benefit from war are the nation's bigger companies.
Your view of the world is very much a post-ww2 one. States waged war long before companies even existed. The real issue is power, and resources. Not corporations. Companies are only permitted to exist because they have been found to benefit the state. They, like everything else, only exist at the whim of the state. All companies will bend to the state, because the state has a monopoly on violence.

We live in Pax Americana, in the peace brought by overwhelming dominance of the American empire.

>Why do you think war happens if not to bring benefit to the private sector? It is true that during times of war the state has a bigger influence in the economy, but those who motivate and benefit from war are the nation's bigger companies.
War doesn't benefit the private sector, it benefits a few select special interests and corporation. Broken window fallacy

Just to make myself clear: You think that war happens in order to benefit the private sector. I say the private sector only exists to benefit the state. Thus war exists to benefit the state, as it always has.

Coming from a third world protectionist shithole that fell for the imports replacing meme, that's shooting yourself in the foot. Metrics like employment and industrialization improve at first but they stagnate after a decade. I can regularly find higher quality and cheaper chink shit shippen accross 2 oceans than local shit. The only foreign companies that abided by the protectionist regulations actually manufacture all the pieces elsewhere and just assemble locally so they can write it off as 'national industry' and get a little tax break.
Mercantilism died in the 18th century grandpa, if you want businesses and factories you attract them with honey, not vinegar. Also the state is not the people. That's how politicians get you to support their 'I know better' policies

>the private sector only exists to benefit the state
Literally a fascist concept, not even memeing.

It's not a concept when it's 100% true. The main point of the state is to wield military power. This is true, because if it didn't a different state with military power would invade and take over. Everything else within the state is only permitted because it benefits the state or is found to be inconsequential. If the state finds certain behaviors to be a detriment to the state, it will ban them and use violence against those who defy the ban. This applies to every state on the planet, even the united states. Keep in mind that the united states was born out of the necessity to wield military force against another state.

Even if it turns out to be true, it's still a concept. And it's still a fascist one. The only people who have made that point have been fascists.

>Mercantilism died in the 18th century
Tariffs died in the 20th century and ever since then the american middle class has been stagnating or decreasing.

>Coming from a third world protectionist shithole that fell for the imports replacing meme, that's shooting yourself in the foot. Metrics like employment and industrialization improve at first but they stagnate after a decade
Tariffs need to be selective, shit that you obviously can't produce well you should not tax like this. Obvious tariffs would be national crops, natural resources that you have plenty of like iron or wood, and if you have a car manufcaturing industry cars too.

>I can regularly find higher quality and cheaper chink shit shippen accross 2 oceans than local shit
In that scenario the tariffs are obviously not high enough to make you buy local goods.

>The only foreign companies that abided by the protectionist regulations actually manufacture all the pieces elsewhere and just assemble locally so they can write it off as 'national industry' and get a little tax break.
Loopholes can't be a legitimate argument against the concept itself.

It's hard to say it's a fascist concept when the concept predates fascism by at least 5000 years.

>The only people who have made that point have been fascists.
Maybe they are the only ones being honest about it.

It's not fascist at all you dolt. The most accurate description of the state is an organization that has the monopoly on the initiation of force within a geographical area. That is true no matter if you're a fascist, libertarian, or communist.

You're a fascist mate, just admit it.

No, you're just an idiot who thinks General Motors engineered ww2 in order to sell tanks.

I never said anything about tariffs.

>There are many connections between the Pax Romana and what we are seeing now.
I see.

>The real issue is power, and resources.
Who actually gets to use those resources most of the time?

>Companies are only permitted to exist because they have been found to benefit the state. They, like everything else, only exist at the whim of the state. All companies will bend to the state, because the state has a monopoly on violence.
This is not a very unreasonable argument, but it is often not true. The state and private sector have a mutualist relationship under capitalism. They cooperate for mutual gain. Venezuela decided to piss off their private sector and, because of that, have been facing economic disaster. Very often, state officials will have their political careers financed by big companies, and even get high paying positions in those companies, in exchange for protecting their interests.
There have only been a few examples of modern states which have managed to operate without a private sector. The Soviet Union comes to mind, but they simply put another rulling class into power, with the state acting as its extension.

>I say the private sector only exists to benefit the state
Yes, but the opposite is also true. The state exists as an extension of the rulling class.

>I have all the political opinions and views on the world and history as that of a fascist, but I'm not a fascist
Keep living in denial.

>The state and private sector have a mutualist relationship under capitalism. They cooperate for mutual gain.
True and guess what happens if the state and the private sector have different opinions on how to govern the country. Guess who wins that fight.
>Venezuela decided to piss off their private sector and, because of that, have been facing economic disaster.
Economic disaster, sure, but the state is still in control and still has the monopoly on violence. Economic hardship is not always the enemy of the state. You are thinking small, you need to think in the span of centuries. The economy will recover.
>There have only been a few examples of modern states which have managed to operate without a private sector.
The state doesn't have to operate without the private sector, it can replace it with one that is more malleable to the goals of the state if necessary. Companies don't have armies. They will do as the state wishes or be shut down and replaced with one that will.
>The state exists as an extension of the rulling class.
Sure, that doesn't invalidate anything though.

>I call everyone I don't like a nazi.
I'm sure it will work this time, just keep doing it. It will work eventually.

Muh fascist boogeyman. I'm sure you think Drumpf is a fascist too.

Dude, it's fine if you're a fascist, I don't judge you for it, even though I disagree with you.

It's just a technical term, I don't use it as an insult. You're the one who can't come to terms with who you are.

You do realize that libertarians and plenty of other groups hold those views about the state, right? Not just fascists. Pretty much the only ones NOT to understand the reality of the state and violence are communists.

Are you a commie?

You're a fucking retarded brainlet dude. Damn why are most leftists so fucking low iq they can't even analyze their own standpoints

A libertarian would understand the state in exactly the same way and use it as an argument AGAINST the expansion of the state. It doesn't automatically = fascist. Use a little logic. It's like saying someone who understands that guns cant shoot without a person pulling the trigger is pro-gun.

I have never heard a libertarian describe the purpose of the private sector being to benefit the state. The only people I've heard say that is fascists as an essential part of their ideology and world view.

he's a black or white binary retard, either youre a leftie or you're a fascist according to him, no fucking nuance at all, he's a total brainlet. he hasn't even attempted to argue his standpoint he just screams "le fascist!!!xD"

See

tawan full of chicn

I'm merely recognizing that the private sector only exists because the state permits it, not that it should benefit the state. You are confusing an explanation of reality for a desire.

He's not talking about the "monopoly on force" part. Everyone agrees with that (except perhaps liberals and socdems). He's talking about the idea that the state can exist as an entity unconnected to a rulling class.
Personally, I don't really care if it is a fascist concept or not. I deal with all concepts equally.

>Guess who wins that fight.
You would be surprised.
Regardless, these very rarely happen, because of how interconnected the rulling class is with the state.

>Economic disaster, sure, but the state is still in control
For how long? A similar case happened in Chile, and it ended up with a coup. The big companies were not happy with the state, so they motivated a coup and put another state into power. It is true that the private sector cannot do anything violent without a state to protect it and act on its behalf, but this does not make the private sector powerless.

>The state doesn't have to operate without the private sector, it can replace it with one that is more malleable to the goals of the state if necessary
This implies that there is a state with goals separate from those of the rulling class. This has not happened even in actual examples of fascism (which is, actually, exactly what you are describing). The private sector motivated fascism in order to protect its interests. The idea that the state can exist as an entity separate from the rulling class with separate interests in mind is completely unfounded in reality. By its very nature, the rulling class will look towards state power to protect itself, and they do not have any problems with motivating coups.

Just to clarify: Just because fire burns, doesn't mean I WANT it to burn. I just recognize that it burns.

These are logical fallacies called "ad hominem" and "strawman". It simply shows that you do not have a valid argument to present, and that you have lost the debate.

>He's talking about the idea that the state can exist as an entity unconnected to a rulling class.
I'm not saying that at all, that part doesn't matter. Issues of class don't matter. The state and the ruling class are one and the same. Their "class" doesn't matter. We are talking about an entity capable of exerting force on the world around it.
>Regardless, these very rarely happen, because of how interconnected the rulling class is with the state.
Again, the ruling class is the state, the difference is inconsequential.
>For how long? A similar case happened in Chile, and it ended up with a coup. The big companies were not happy with the state, so they motivated a coup and put another state into power.
>another state into power.
This is where you are wrong. The state is the entity capable of exerting force and violence. If the politicians were not able to do that, they weren't the state, the state turned against them.
>This implies that there is a state with goals separate from those of the rulling class. This has not happened even in actual examples of fascism (which is, actually, exactly what you are describing). The private sector motivated fascism in order to protect its interests. The idea that the state can exist as an entity separate from the rulling class with separate interests in mind is completely unfounded in reality. By its very nature, the rulling class will look towards state power to protect itself, and they do not have any problems with motivating coups.
The ruling class is whoever is in control of the military, in that case the ruling class was hitler and his cronies. The private sector had no choice but to bend to the will of hitler, because otherwise force would be used against them and their families.

The state is violence. Whoever controls violence is the ruling class.

>He's talking about the idea that the state can exist as an entity unconnected to a rulling class.
How could it? by it's definition those who control the state are the rulers.

You haven't even presented an argument in the first place you fucking dumb retarded idiot. There is nothing to refute because you haven't said anything except you're a fascist, you haven't presented an argument. Fuck you nigger.

Also you have no clue what an ad hominem argument is you dumb nigger. A personal attack is not an ad hominem ARGUMENT because it's not an argument at all.

Wow, more personal insults. I don't expect much from you now, you're clearly too emotional to make rational arguments.

>implying there's only one person in this thread who disagrees with you
Judging by posting patterns I see at least 4-5 people against 1. You seem to be alone.

>that part doesn't matter
Nigga, please.

>The state and the ruling class are one and the same
Then you must recognise the way in which the state holds a mutualist relationship with the private sector.

>Again, the ruling class is the state
You missunderstand. The state is a structure used by the rulling class. A class is defined by its role in the economy. In this case, the rulling class are the bigger companies of the country.

>the state turned against them
It would seem, then, that the state has a big tendency towards protecting the interests of the private sector, doesn't it?

>The private sector had no choice but to bend to the will of hitler, because otherwise force would be used against them and their families.
This disregards how much support he got from the bigger german companies, and how much he benefited them. The only way a state unfavourable to the rulling class can get to and remain in power is through revolution.

The state is a super-organism that, like any group organisme, seeks to expand and perpetuate itself. Rulers and elites do not control the state, the state controls them. All leaders are simply puppets following the will of the state, which is a will separate from any individual.

Keep flinging those adhoms around, boy. Maybe someday you'll grow up.

You are obsessed with class. It smacks of marxist theory. It doesn't matter which class of people makes up the state, rich, poor, bourgeoisie, whoever has the ability to exert violence against others is the "ruling class."

And the fact that you are obsessed with the private sector also points to your marxist leanings. The state existed long before any private ventures did. Private ventures were found to be beneficial, and thus were encouraged.
>It would seem, then, that the state has a big tendency towards protecting the interests of the private sector, doesn't it?
That's because, in general, the private sector is beneficial to the state. When it stops being beneficial, the state will stop it from existing, through the use of force.

We are talking about something that is at least 10,000 years old (the state) and something that is less than 500 years old (private ventures). You lack perspective. You are so narrowly focused on socialist theories that are too narrow-minded and overly simplistic. The private sector is a baby in the grand scheme of things.

>fascist
>boy
says the guy who started and persists with it.

The term fascist is entirely technical, not an insult.

>The term fascist is entirely technical, not an insult.
The term negro is entirely technical, not an insult. See how far you get without getting punched.

It's called industrial policies, something the west has forgotten about

>Oh im just comparing you to genocidal maniacs, the most evil people to ever exist
>its not an insult

Where I come from, negro is still an entirely neutral descriptor of subsaharan africans. Sounds like your American cultural bias is seeping through. Learn to separate yourself from your cultural prejudices and look at things objectively.

Tell that to a black person and try not to get killed.

The fascists were not the most evil people to ever exist, that's ridiculous hyperbole.

>hes defending nazis now

>implying they weren't the good guys

I have, and they didn't care. What, do you think all black people are violent psychos?

>What, do you think all black people are violent psychos?
Not all, just enough that it's statistically a bad idea to go around calling people negro on the street.

You're more likely to be harassed by a wh*te person than an african-american brother.

not per capita, you aint.

>meme capita

Non-whites are far more likely to resort to violence. You don't have to worry about a WASP trying to kill you over a perceived slight.

Wasps are assholes, they sting you for absolutely no reason. I hate them.

No it’s not Zhang

>implying China isn't in charge of nearly every asian country
I bet you still believe Hongkong acts on it's own will KEK