Summary
China condemned JD Vance on Tuesday for calling Chinese people “peasants” in a Fox News interview, where he said, “To make it a little more crystal clear, we borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture.”
The Chinese Foreign Ministry labeled the remarks “ignorant and disrespectful.”
The backlash exploded on Chinese social media, garnering 140 million Weibo views.
Critics mocked Vance’s own “hillbilly” background and pointed to China’s advanced tech and infrastructure, highlighting rising tensions amid Trump’s trade war.
“Inefficiencies of central planning”. It’s wasteful and kind of amusing but at least they got something done and may even have a city coming next
For new development, It is easier to build subway first and then build around it or build concurrently at the same time but the trains/busses and road need to work before people will occupy the buildings there. It is common practice for new development.
In some countries like Singapore that is how it is done for new development because most people don’t drive in Singapore, they don’t even own cars. Public transport like buses and subway/mrt need to start operating in those new areas before people move in. People need to be able to get to their home and offices by bus or train, if not no one will move in to their new homes except for the few with cars. Other countries with high car ownership they just need roads to be operational so they might not understand this.
If something can be unintentionally wasteful, there are fewer steps to make it intentionally wasteful, and it’s not just theft and loss of efficiency, but way to build up power to do more of the same. Which eventually corrupts a society fully. Which is what has happened to the USSR.
Well, this is happening to all of the world now, so nothing specific for planned economies.
Maybe USSR actually did the heroic sacrifice of detecting the minefield ahead.
Like with writing programs, some people prefer exceptions somehow handled with try-catch, and some prefer logically complete processes. If a language supports exceptions, you’ll use them if you want to work with other people, but there are benefits to being strict to yourself too. Same with the USSR - it failed encountering a problem, but that other big powers didn’t fail right then doesn’t mean they didn’t encounter the same problem or did process it correctly.