This is a great article about the positive progress the world is making.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/lea ... d-tidings/
Less poverty, less income disparity, more efficient fossil fuel use, less war, less AIDS, less malaria, more oil (debatable improvement I guess) etc.
Profound articles of interest
Re: Profound articles of interest
That article sucked.
How fucking pompus to claim that the world is going 50 shades of awesome from an (I'm assuming) very privileged perspective as someone who writes for The Spectator. A generation that doesn't know of war? BULLSHIT. Energy abundance in the form of horizontal fracturing ("fracking") BULLSHIT. Overconsumption of "plastic toys" being made in China is strengthening social equality in the name of globalization? BULLSHIT.
This reminds me of an article I read on globalization called "The World is Flat" which posits that in the advent of the internet, we all of a sudden have a level playing field by which everyone is magically equalized because we can all log on to Google.
I'm sorry, but this overly optimistic article completely blinds itself of all the fucked up shit going on in the world from a pedestal. Fuck this.
How fucking pompus to claim that the world is going 50 shades of awesome from an (I'm assuming) very privileged perspective as someone who writes for The Spectator. A generation that doesn't know of war? BULLSHIT. Energy abundance in the form of horizontal fracturing ("fracking") BULLSHIT. Overconsumption of "plastic toys" being made in China is strengthening social equality in the name of globalization? BULLSHIT.
This reminds me of an article I read on globalization called "The World is Flat" which posits that in the advent of the internet, we all of a sudden have a level playing field by which everyone is magically equalized because we can all log on to Google.
I'm sorry, but this overly optimistic article completely blinds itself of all the fucked up shit going on in the world from a pedestal. Fuck this.
Nick Pasquarello
Shred on
Shred on
Re: Profound articles of interest
Hi Nick,
I have to take issue with a lot of what you've said. Firstly I would love to see your references for your claims, or at least an explanation. The author is taking what I would have considered mainly indisputable figures and presenting them - it's an attempt at describing the world, and I don't see how you can claim any of it is bullshit unless you have evidence that contradicts the basis of the article. The evidence doesn't change regardless of whether the author is "privileged" or not.
Your first statement about "a generation that doesn't know war" seems to cut out both the basis of that statement and the qualifier. He's not saying that war doesn't exist (as the qualifier that you cut out of the quote demonstrates) but he is saying less people died in the last decade from war than at any other time in recent memory. This has been demonstrated over and over by the UN, and in Steven Pinker's newish book (Angels of our Better Nature). There is a wealth of evidence supporting this claim. In what way is it bullshit?
Secondly, the comments about Fracking are supported by a number of environmentalists, who I would assume share similar ideologies as you. In fact people like Joe Romm and James Hansen see this as the danger of "fracking" - that it opens up the possibility of huge fossil fuel emissions, because we're not going to run out of oil in the near future, and our oil emissions aren't going to diminish nor will their be a direct economic incentive to develop alternatives. Again this is a very well demonstrated fact. Do you think the estimates from the IEA and other bodies as to how much gas and oil could be extracted from non-conventional sources is false, or that there isn't money to be made on it? If so do you have any evidence about this? Of course how this relates to climate change is not an issue brought up by the article, so if that's your disagreement, it's not something the article actually contradicts.
Again, the UNHDR, the WHO and other organisations have clearly demonstrated that the 1990s and 2000s saw more people raised from poverty than at any other time in human history. You can find this observation repeated in economic text books and across a range of sources. I can find 4 independent sources on the first page of a google search. The vast majority of these people live in Asia, and what possible explanation for that boom is there, other than the growth of manufacturing for tertiary economies? Do you have any evidence that something else caused this by something else, or that it didn't happen?
The article doesn't claim that the world is perfect, merely that it's getting better, and that it's not a disaster. Getting better doesn't mean good enough. There is an attitude that people on the extremes of the Left and Right that the world is getting worse, and that it's only a matter of time before society collapses. As far as I can see, all the actual evidence points the other way. Although in isolated places things are getting worse, and certainly things could be a lot better, the world as it is now is still better on many fronts than it's ever been. The environment and especially climate change remains a challenge, but even there there are many reasons to think things will never reach the point of catastrophe (at least on a global scale). If you have actual evidence that contradicts this, I'd love to see it, but otherwise it just looks like you're spouting ideological rhetoric that is divorced from reality.
I have to take issue with a lot of what you've said. Firstly I would love to see your references for your claims, or at least an explanation. The author is taking what I would have considered mainly indisputable figures and presenting them - it's an attempt at describing the world, and I don't see how you can claim any of it is bullshit unless you have evidence that contradicts the basis of the article. The evidence doesn't change regardless of whether the author is "privileged" or not.
Your first statement about "a generation that doesn't know war" seems to cut out both the basis of that statement and the qualifier. He's not saying that war doesn't exist (as the qualifier that you cut out of the quote demonstrates) but he is saying less people died in the last decade from war than at any other time in recent memory. This has been demonstrated over and over by the UN, and in Steven Pinker's newish book (Angels of our Better Nature). There is a wealth of evidence supporting this claim. In what way is it bullshit?
Secondly, the comments about Fracking are supported by a number of environmentalists, who I would assume share similar ideologies as you. In fact people like Joe Romm and James Hansen see this as the danger of "fracking" - that it opens up the possibility of huge fossil fuel emissions, because we're not going to run out of oil in the near future, and our oil emissions aren't going to diminish nor will their be a direct economic incentive to develop alternatives. Again this is a very well demonstrated fact. Do you think the estimates from the IEA and other bodies as to how much gas and oil could be extracted from non-conventional sources is false, or that there isn't money to be made on it? If so do you have any evidence about this? Of course how this relates to climate change is not an issue brought up by the article, so if that's your disagreement, it's not something the article actually contradicts.
Again, the UNHDR, the WHO and other organisations have clearly demonstrated that the 1990s and 2000s saw more people raised from poverty than at any other time in human history. You can find this observation repeated in economic text books and across a range of sources. I can find 4 independent sources on the first page of a google search. The vast majority of these people live in Asia, and what possible explanation for that boom is there, other than the growth of manufacturing for tertiary economies? Do you have any evidence that something else caused this by something else, or that it didn't happen?
The article doesn't claim that the world is perfect, merely that it's getting better, and that it's not a disaster. Getting better doesn't mean good enough. There is an attitude that people on the extremes of the Left and Right that the world is getting worse, and that it's only a matter of time before society collapses. As far as I can see, all the actual evidence points the other way. Although in isolated places things are getting worse, and certainly things could be a lot better, the world as it is now is still better on many fronts than it's ever been. The environment and especially climate change remains a challenge, but even there there are many reasons to think things will never reach the point of catastrophe (at least on a global scale). If you have actual evidence that contradicts this, I'd love to see it, but otherwise it just looks like you're spouting ideological rhetoric that is divorced from reality.
Re: Profound articles of interest
Okay, I'll admit outright that the difference in opinion is rooted in philosophy, not metrics that independent sources produce.
I don't have the time nor the capacity to dig into studies, scholarly or otherwise, to counter your arguments. I use the public library for my internet access and that's limited to a few sessions a day. I'm also unemployed and trying to look for a job, so I don't really have the time to be doing this but I will anyway.
"Take global poverty" for one. Sure figures put that a record number of people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 22 years, but I feel this overly optimistic and has a lot to do with how "poverty" is defined in society. The number of people subsisting on less than $1 or $2 a day remains remarkably high, yet a lot of people who struggle every single day to feed themselves and their families, have a roof over their heads, have basic healthcare, could be considered living above the poverty line. I can speak for the U.S. as I do know the "poverty line" here is considered making $22,400/year per household of 4. I don't know about you, but this figure is an insult to families living at or slightly above this margin, as their quality of life and perpetual struggle is undermined by the fact that they are not 'in poverty'. In the U.S., how we determine poverty rates, much like unemployment rates, is entirely misleading. It is calculated on the basis of food being the primary cost for a household.
This is a very outdated method, as rent disproportionately costs more than housing does, yet this has not been changed in decades. The same systemic flaws persist globally, as he posits in his article that "Buying cheap plastic toys made in China really is helping to make poverty history". The quality of life for those Chinese manufacturing our goods is for the most part abysmal. Take Foxconn, a development of many factories which installed 'safety nets' above dormitories because too many workers were committing suicide (http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012 ... tml#slide9) These workers, who live 8-10 a room, are those who are being 'lifted out of poverty'? By any humane notion, these people are suffering, but for all numbers can tell, poverty and global inequality is on the decline. I'm not dismissing the figures that are increasing, I'm dismissing the systemic means by which we consider abstract concepts like poverty and inequality. It is this strict economic perspective which undermines the reality of the plight of people living (for all numbers can tell) above poverty. And then we can all feel good about it because numbers say so.
I only have 10 minutes left so I gotta be brief. Ok so fracking. Fracking is touted as a 'job creator' in the state that I'm from (PA) and the state I live in (OH) because they are both on the Utica Shale map. Fracking has been shown to be toxic, causing tap water to be flammable and communities to be effected in terms of their physical health. These people, many of whom are poor (but not in poverty! Go us!) can't just up and leave their homes, but are subjected to the physical ailments involved with fracking. This does not imply that they themselves have sold their land to be fracked, it can be one or many neighbors doing this and they just have to bear the brunt. Fracking is particularly scary not only because it drives us further into fossil fuel dependence, but also because it is exempt from many EPA regulations (http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/u ... droreg.cfm). But it's okay, because we have more gas, and we're creating jobs! (which will only disappear once the shale is dried up). There is NO long-term thinking or planning involved with methods such as this. Meanwhile global warming continues at a rapid pace and we have escalated natural disasters, which devastate large urban centers and destroy infrastructure.
Can't get into other stuff atm, time's up.
I don't have the time nor the capacity to dig into studies, scholarly or otherwise, to counter your arguments. I use the public library for my internet access and that's limited to a few sessions a day. I'm also unemployed and trying to look for a job, so I don't really have the time to be doing this but I will anyway.
"Take global poverty" for one. Sure figures put that a record number of people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 22 years, but I feel this overly optimistic and has a lot to do with how "poverty" is defined in society. The number of people subsisting on less than $1 or $2 a day remains remarkably high, yet a lot of people who struggle every single day to feed themselves and their families, have a roof over their heads, have basic healthcare, could be considered living above the poverty line. I can speak for the U.S. as I do know the "poverty line" here is considered making $22,400/year per household of 4. I don't know about you, but this figure is an insult to families living at or slightly above this margin, as their quality of life and perpetual struggle is undermined by the fact that they are not 'in poverty'. In the U.S., how we determine poverty rates, much like unemployment rates, is entirely misleading. It is calculated on the basis of food being the primary cost for a household.
This is a very outdated method, as rent disproportionately costs more than housing does, yet this has not been changed in decades. The same systemic flaws persist globally, as he posits in his article that "Buying cheap plastic toys made in China really is helping to make poverty history". The quality of life for those Chinese manufacturing our goods is for the most part abysmal. Take Foxconn, a development of many factories which installed 'safety nets' above dormitories because too many workers were committing suicide (http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2012 ... tml#slide9) These workers, who live 8-10 a room, are those who are being 'lifted out of poverty'? By any humane notion, these people are suffering, but for all numbers can tell, poverty and global inequality is on the decline. I'm not dismissing the figures that are increasing, I'm dismissing the systemic means by which we consider abstract concepts like poverty and inequality. It is this strict economic perspective which undermines the reality of the plight of people living (for all numbers can tell) above poverty. And then we can all feel good about it because numbers say so.
I only have 10 minutes left so I gotta be brief. Ok so fracking. Fracking is touted as a 'job creator' in the state that I'm from (PA) and the state I live in (OH) because they are both on the Utica Shale map. Fracking has been shown to be toxic, causing tap water to be flammable and communities to be effected in terms of their physical health. These people, many of whom are poor (but not in poverty! Go us!) can't just up and leave their homes, but are subjected to the physical ailments involved with fracking. This does not imply that they themselves have sold their land to be fracked, it can be one or many neighbors doing this and they just have to bear the brunt. Fracking is particularly scary not only because it drives us further into fossil fuel dependence, but also because it is exempt from many EPA regulations (http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/u ... droreg.cfm). But it's okay, because we have more gas, and we're creating jobs! (which will only disappear once the shale is dried up). There is NO long-term thinking or planning involved with methods such as this. Meanwhile global warming continues at a rapid pace and we have escalated natural disasters, which devastate large urban centers and destroy infrastructure.
Can't get into other stuff atm, time's up.
Nick Pasquarello
Shred on
Shred on
Re: Profound articles of interest
Neither of your two criticisms actually contradict anything the article says. Regardless of how "poverty" is defined, the amount of wealth people have, in fixed currency inflation adjusted terms has increased dramatically across the entire world apart from Sub-Saharan Africa (where it has still slightly increased). To acknowledge this fact isn't to say that we should be happy or accept the amount of poverty in the world.
Likewise there are many valid criticisms of fracking, but the article merely repeats the fact that oil production is increasing due to unconventional oil supplies becoming economically viable, and that the fear of civilisation as we know it collapsing due to "peak oil" is a misguided fear (as economists were telling us for decades). To acknowledge this is to not dismiss the environmental challenges that we face.
What I thought you were essentially saying, especially in your first post, is that you don't agree with reality because it contradicts with your ideology. The things you say in your second post are things you can accept as fact, while also accepting the facts of the article.
Edit; I note too, on the question of China, that you could instead look at almost any income group greater than what you chose, and the portion of people earning that amount of money is increasing. China has a very well documented growing middle class, and growing wealthy. If that's not caused by the manufacturing boom in Asia over the last two decades, what is the cause? The people moving into Foxconn like jobs (who incidentally have a lower documented suicide rate than US teenagers) are coming from even poorer backgrounds, and some of them are moving through jobs like that into higher paid positions. This takes time - generations in fact - but if you divide China into quintiles, every quintile is richer now than they were 20 years ago (ie. the poorest 20% today are richer than the poorest 20% 20 years ago, etc.). Nobody thinks China is perfect right now, but surely you'd have to accept that life is getting better in China, and what explanation for this can you offer, other than the manufacturing boom?
Likewise there are many valid criticisms of fracking, but the article merely repeats the fact that oil production is increasing due to unconventional oil supplies becoming economically viable, and that the fear of civilisation as we know it collapsing due to "peak oil" is a misguided fear (as economists were telling us for decades). To acknowledge this is to not dismiss the environmental challenges that we face.
What I thought you were essentially saying, especially in your first post, is that you don't agree with reality because it contradicts with your ideology. The things you say in your second post are things you can accept as fact, while also accepting the facts of the article.
Edit; I note too, on the question of China, that you could instead look at almost any income group greater than what you chose, and the portion of people earning that amount of money is increasing. China has a very well documented growing middle class, and growing wealthy. If that's not caused by the manufacturing boom in Asia over the last two decades, what is the cause? The people moving into Foxconn like jobs (who incidentally have a lower documented suicide rate than US teenagers) are coming from even poorer backgrounds, and some of them are moving through jobs like that into higher paid positions. This takes time - generations in fact - but if you divide China into quintiles, every quintile is richer now than they were 20 years ago (ie. the poorest 20% today are richer than the poorest 20% 20 years ago, etc.). Nobody thinks China is perfect right now, but surely you'd have to accept that life is getting better in China, and what explanation for this can you offer, other than the manufacturing boom?
Re: Profound articles of interest
It was not my intention to contradict anything the article is saying. Rather, I am looking at it from a different point of view which takes into consideration things that I think this article severely undermines. I did not say that the things stated in the article were wrong, particularly with the metrics he uses and the sources by which he obtained them, I rather take issue with how these abstract concepts are defined in the first place.Jeremy wrote:Neither of your two criticisms actually contradict anything the article says.
That said, I think what you said later somewhat clarifies where I'm coming from:
While I think you go too far saying that I "don't agree with reality", you do understand that the facts presented in the article as well as where I'm coming from coexist.Jeremy wrote:What I thought you were essentially saying, especially in your first post, is that you don't agree with reality because it contradicts with your ideology. The things you say in your second post are things you can accept as fact, while also accepting the facts of the article.
As for China and the example of Foxconn in particular, I again wasn't disputing that the manufacturing boom has lifted many out of poverty. What I argue is that it's just going from one form of poverty to another. One could be making more $$ working at Foxconn than in their home village, but their quality of life has most likely improved only marginally, or deteriorated in some cases, case in point the suicides and "solution" of installing nets to prevent this. Again, it is this strict rational economic perspective that I take issue with defining concepts like 'poverty'. It only takes into account the amount of $$ one makes and whether they make over a certain amount. No attention whatsoever goes toward the quality of life afforded these populations, such as their living quarters, free time, access to health-care, and mental health.
It is this strict definition that I feel justifies globalization as a whole, based entirely on cost-benefit analysis and pays no heed to externalities of the system it is operating under. So in China Foxconn makes iPhones because Apple doesn't want to produce these products in the U.S. due to the relative increase in labor costs. iPhones use toxic minerals harvested from the cheap labor of Africans in places the Congo, shipped to China to be manufactured at the lowest cost of labor possible, so they can ship them to places like the U.S. so that Americans can have them. The externalities of the undervalued labor of Africans and Chinese comes at the cost of our relatively cheap iPhones, which Apple reaps incredible profit.
The point I'm trying to make is that sure, globalization and the manufacturing boom is responsible for the jobs created to (over) produce planned obsolescent products which feed an ever-growing sense of consumerism and demand for more. This process comes at the continued deprivation of thousands of workers along the way who themselves have little to no chance of advancing to a better position. All the while we are harvesting minerals from the earth that are finite and once produced, extremely toxic when discarded. But of course we ship this toxic trash to less important art of the country/world where poor people will have to deal with it, at a cost to their physical well-being. This translates directly to the process of fracking. People are left at the mercy of a process which is only short-term. They are plagued with contaminated air and water, all because it is more economically feasible to extracted shale out of bedrock than to think long-term and seriously invest in sustainable energy sources.
It's all good in the short term, but I'm thinking bigger picture and alternatives to the current systems/processes we are undergoing as a society and asking a serious question: "can we do better?" I think we can, and though I can't dispute the 'successes' of what we're doing right now, I shutter to think that we will just keep doing this on that basis instead of thinking long-term and asking whether there are alternatives that can be better for ALL people, not just the wealthy which continue to reap the benefits, and the earth as a whole.
Nick Pasquarello
Shred on
Shred on
Re: Profound articles of interest
So all of the parts of the article you quoted and called "BULLSHIT" you don't actually disagree with?
Re: Profound articles of interest
While my gut reaction to the article left a resonating "BULLSHIT" vibe, I'll concede that that it's not that facts I disagree with, it is the underpinning (and manipulative in some cases) means by which they are reported and the broader thesis by which they support.
Namely, the article cites globalization as the cause for lifting people up out of 'poverty' (a manipulated definition) and leaves it at that, leaving no openness to flaws and criticisms of this system or offering other ways we can be doing better.
To actually make said claims would entail a much more involved and heavily researched article, which is partially why I don't like this one because it kind of throws select studies at you, ignores opposition (empirical or theoretical) and makes broad based claims that require much more thorough backing. But I do feel this is intentional because the article aims to scratch the surface, not be too long, and leave the reader with a feel-good euphoria because we're clearly doing everything right in this day and age.
Namely, the article cites globalization as the cause for lifting people up out of 'poverty' (a manipulated definition) and leaves it at that, leaving no openness to flaws and criticisms of this system or offering other ways we can be doing better.
To actually make said claims would entail a much more involved and heavily researched article, which is partially why I don't like this one because it kind of throws select studies at you, ignores opposition (empirical or theoretical) and makes broad based claims that require much more thorough backing. But I do feel this is intentional because the article aims to scratch the surface, not be too long, and leave the reader with a feel-good euphoria because we're clearly doing everything right in this day and age.
Nick Pasquarello
Shred on
Shred on
Re: Profound articles of interest
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/new ... e-20121207
"The Rise and Fall of Jeremy Hammond: Enemy of the State"
A must-read for anyone interested in Anonymous, hackisvism, and the like. And if you're not, you should be.
"The Rise and Fall of Jeremy Hammond: Enemy of the State"
A must-read for anyone interested in Anonymous, hackisvism, and the like. And if you're not, you should be.
Nick Pasquarello
Shred on
Shred on
Re: Profound articles of interest
World Question 2013;
http://edge.org/annual-question/q2013
I've posted previous questions on modified before. Basically some of the world's top academics and intellectuals are asked an open ended question and their answer published. This year's question is "What should we be worried about?"
http://edge.org/annual-question/q2013
I've posted previous questions on modified before. Basically some of the world's top academics and intellectuals are asked an open ended question and their answer published. This year's question is "What should we be worried about?"
Re: Profound articles of interest
Not an article, but a recent interview with Noam Chompsky:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/n ... al-center/
This 25 min interview touches on many important things like
- privilege as a call to responsibility for social change @ 3:30
- neo-liberalization (globalization) @ around 6:45
- the U.S. drone program @ 12:00
- U.S. complicity in expanding Israeli settlements in Palestine @ 14:00
and he boldly states that President Obama has "no moral compass"
People seem to either love or hate Chompsky, but there's no denying his intelligence and longstanding activism. At 84 he continues to speak truth to power always with a solid historical and contemporary perspective.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/n ... al-center/
This 25 min interview touches on many important things like
- privilege as a call to responsibility for social change @ 3:30
- neo-liberalization (globalization) @ around 6:45
- the U.S. drone program @ 12:00
- U.S. complicity in expanding Israeli settlements in Palestine @ 14:00
and he boldly states that President Obama has "no moral compass"
People seem to either love or hate Chompsky, but there's no denying his intelligence and longstanding activism. At 84 he continues to speak truth to power always with a solid historical and contemporary perspective.
Nick Pasquarello
Shred on
Shred on
Re: Profound articles of interest
I lolled, thanks Ken.
I've been reading through these lately, which contain a lot of interesting articles (and a few shit ones);
http://byliner.com/spotlights/102-spect ... icles-2012
I've been reading through these lately, which contain a lot of interesting articles (and a few shit ones);
http://byliner.com/spotlights/102-spect ... icles-2012
Re: Profound articles of interest
That was a good piece by E.O. Wilson
I'm reading his book "The Future of Life" right now. He's a good writer & he has an amazingly thorough and comprehensive outlook on, well, everything.
The argument that the humanities and hard sciences should coexist more and not be thought of as mutually exclusive in that article is a perfect example of this.
I'm reading his book "The Future of Life" right now. He's a good writer & he has an amazingly thorough and comprehensive outlook on, well, everything.
The argument that the humanities and hard sciences should coexist more and not be thought of as mutually exclusive in that article is a perfect example of this.
Nick Pasquarello
Shred on
Shred on
Re: Profound articles of interest
I'm a big E. O. Wilson fan, and have read most of his books. I think though, he's wrong about group evolution, and I think when people put forward a debated idea along with the phrase "more and more people are starting to think like this", it's a pretty strong clue that it's a bad idea. There's really only a handful of scientists still promoting group evolution (after the heyday in the 20s and 50s) - it's an idea that has declined a great deal rather than being adopted by more and people. You can see a good representation of this with a Google Ngram search. The first half of the essay is mainly summarising his book Consilience, which is a good read, although I'm more in favour of the views of people like Dan Dennett and Francis Crick (that science is the only method that gives you robust and verifiable answers to attempts at understanding the world, including humanity).
Edit; This is review of Ed Wilson's new book (which I assume is the basis for the NY Times article Ken posted) by Richard Dawkins: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magaz ... n-species/
Edit; This is review of Ed Wilson's new book (which I assume is the basis for the NY Times article Ken posted) by Richard Dawkins: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magaz ... n-species/
Re: Profound articles of interest
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... ement.html
A graduate student found computation errors that allegedly severely diminish the validity of Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff's pro-austerity economics paper, "Growth in a Time of Debt."
A graduate student found computation errors that allegedly severely diminish the validity of Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff's pro-austerity economics paper, "Growth in a Time of Debt."
Re: Profound articles of interest
I saw that on Wonk Blog, and was amused. It makes the situation in Australia even more absurd. Our debt is like 25% of GDP and we've had positive economic growth without recession for 21 consecutive years, straight through the GFC, yet the political party that is winning the polls and almost certain to win the election in a few months is campaigning on the issue of debt and economic management, and is planning on massively cutting government spending to reduce that debt. It just goes to show that the majority of people in any country are uneducated buffoons who can only be influenced by the most simplistic of arguments, regardless of reality.
Re: Profound articles of interest
Here in the United States the layman-friendly argument tends to go something like, "if you owe three apples but only have two apples then the Chinese invade."