Biden's bad (and maybe bad) policies.

[Red]

With regard “against punishment across the board” what do you propose should be done once police catch a serial killer who has killed many people and raped and tortured each of them? Or are you saying the Norway prison system isn’t really a punishment? (I did see a TV program once showing their very soft “jail” system.)

Of course they need to be removed from society if they're deemed a threat.

I agree with you on the low intelligence of criminals.….many news reports about criminals being caught reveal obvious mistakes…..
You decided to fix the currency rates illegally, and you openly said you would do this in an email? Really couldn’t just meet up in the conference room for that one?
You sent threatening messages to your ex-girlfriend by whatsapp? Really couldn’t find a way to do that in person or at least over the phone?
You sent poison in the mail from the nearest mailbox to your own house and used the same exact mailbox every time? Really?
You kept incriminating evidence of your crimes on a laptop in your own house? Months after you committed the crimes? Really? Didn’t even have a two-laptop strategy with a hiding place?

uhh yes?

However of course it may be that there are many intelligent criminals, but we don’t hear about their crimes because they don’t get caught. The cases you hear about are going to be disproportionately dumb criminals.

Very very few of them get caught. And the longer they keep it up, the more likely they'll screw up.
The system is set up so that it's as hard as possible to convict someone (has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt). If someone gets convicted, they obviously really fucked up badly somewhere.

With regards nuclear war you can’t be reassured that there has been no nuclear war in 75 years if we only need one to kill billions. When you need something to happen zero times per millenia, and once is a disaster, you can’t infer much from the past statistics. You have to act before the disaster comes.

The leaders of the US and Russia ultimately know nothing good will come of a Nuclear War, and both know the other side know this. I'm not really sure what else to say really.

I actually disagree with opening up trade to North Korea. I think the exact opposite. I think keep it all shut down while trying to persuade China to shut theirs down also. This may not be a short term benefit for the people of North Korea – it may cause more misery in fact. But it will likely weaken the regime. Also (and this is my main argument) I think it sends a message to the world that you lose trade – and hence money – if you have poor human rights – and thus makes it less likely for other countries to follow or maintain a similar route. Trading with a country I think gives power to the country and to the regime: I wrote about how I see it here: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=3880 – although it wasn’t well received.

If NK loses China's support, they'll literally have nothing to lose, which is probably the worst state they could be in. They might threaten to bomb Seoul with a nuclear weapon, which no major country wants.

I'm gonna also have to disagree with your suggestion. I don't think life in the country can get much more miserable (we only really have footage from the urban parts which are the most well-off (and that only makes up a tiny percentage of the population) I can't imagine how miserable it must be for those in rural areas), but opening up trade with them would expand their rights by expanding their economy, giving them better jobs (sure, sweatshop jobs are awful, but as anyone who lives in a country with US production will tell you, it sure as hell beats working on a farm), and giving them an opportunity to leave the country. It's happened with China, India, and S.E. Asia, I don't see why it wouldn't happen with North Korea.

When we opened up trade with China, you can argue it made the government more powerful, but it also gave the people more jobs, money, and of course, rights. Once capitalism took over communism, life has been getting better and better; I'm just wondering when China will become a fully developed country.

Of course, as we've discussed, adding incentives to reducing their authoritarianism would probably be offering more trade if they relax it, and if they don't we'll just trade more with India or Indonesia or something. I don't think I agree with what Biden is doing right now.

Does North Korea have support from China? I think China is fairly neutral. I doubt the leadership in Beijing really respect or care about North Korea or think about them all that much. They would probably oppose a war of Western powers with North Korea because they don't want western military on their doorstep or a nuclear war on their border but that doesn’t make them pro Pyongyang.

They aren't quite allies in the traditional sense, China is more just keeping NK in check. Having a global power stick by their side is what's keeping them from going ballistic, and AFAIK also prevents the US from invading (which would why they'd become so desperate if China stopped supporting them), and China does not want that for the reasons you mentioned (and others).

I read a few books on China that slightly covered the period of China opening up trade (so 1980s and onwards) and I think it was more of a decision made by China itself, and specifically by Deng Xiaoping, to trade. Communism is arguably isolationist and so they didn’t want to trade with the US in the 40s to 70s, even if the US had been interested.

Yep, Deng Xiaoping was the guy who opened up China to Capitalism near the end of the cold war (and after Nixon did his meetings with them), which brought it out of the terrible condition Mao instilled upon it. Communism is usually very isonlationist, with tariffs and protectionism (which any economist will agree is a terrible idea for the economy).

You also have to remember the context; It was the Cold War, and the US didn't really have the best approach to dealing with Communist countries, since they thought War was best (Korean and Vietnam). If they really didn't want these countries falling to Communism, they'd have brought the troops home and traded with the countries, but that wasn't really a popular idea at the time. Liberalism was the dominant ideology, as well as focusing on giving more jobs to Americans (and automation wasn't really a thing yet), so the idea of giving Communist countries more jobs in THAT political climate (communism vs capitalism) would have been political suicide. It was already unpopular having so many Japan-produced products.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectio ... rld_War_II

[Jamie in Chile]

Main risk of nuclear war is by accident – either something like wrong blips on a radar screen or the first one that goes off is an accidental plane crash and escalates from there. So the motive to do it isn´t the point.

I do think the Western companies should spread the trade around more Asian countries that have a bit better human rights (e.g. India) and would be happy to have it.

Not much more else to add on other areas. We could end repeating the same points if we´re not careful.

[Red]

Main risk of nuclear war is by accident – either something like wrong blips on a radar screen or the first one that goes off is an accidental plane crash and escalates from there. So the motive to do it isn´t the point.

I'm just trying to say that countries like the US and Russia operate under the assumption that the other side wouldn't want a nuclear war, so they wouldn't be ready to get the nukes out right away.

I do think the Western companies should spread the trade around more Asian countries that have a bit better human rights (e.g. India) and would be happy to have it.

I can understand that, but just simply supporting trade in those countries does a lot of good in that department.

Not much more else to add on other areas. We could end repeating the same points if we´re not careful.

I can tell you about the time I went to Yoker if you want.