Yogthos, NO!

He’s walking into a hexbear minefield!

Oh god, he he has his headphones on!

Holy fucking shit. This is the most projection I’ve ever seen in one of these headlines.

Vietnam won

Liberal/welfare democracies didn’t stop growing because there was no room to grow.

Gotta partially disagree with you on this one. After WWII, imperialists got a free pass to expand throughout most of the world. All the way up through the fall of the USSR, the US was privatizing and gutting the public sectors of their client states and the eastern block.

However, with the neoliberal consensus overtaking most of the world, the US didn’t have any more big markets to crack open, which is why they had to turn their sights on gutting their own public sectors which they had free access to. Foucault’s boomerang and such

My common reading is that GDP is an indicator of growth. China is currently developing, so it’s GDP is going to be higher. However, at some point they will be considered developed and there will be less reason to grow and it will be more difficult to grow. So the GDP will level off. This has been the trend in capitalist countries.

Whether or not this will apply to the Chinese economy, I don’t know. But I believe this is the framework that people are using when they make this argument.

Sorry, I’m just speaking colloquially. I just mean the GDP has been very high for a long time now.

find a lot of the discussions in the book have an even more progressive outlook than many current conversations. I’ll hear queer people people splitting hairs about labels and arguing how gender works while Feinberg just lays down facts and is pretty much always correct.

Can recent growth rates persist? China’s GDP has been running hot for decades now. Seems like they need to level off at some point.

Yellow cake 🤤

My mistake