Well, the cost of living in those countries is less than it is here, so multi and trans-national companies can therefore get labour at lower costs. They can pay more to a qualified doctor to sit in a call centre answering the phone than a hospital can , but that's still far less than they'd pay over here.

But all this growth is on the basis of making things – things that are often sold to the 'developed' world; us. Think of just how many things you buy that are made in China, India etc. All this was partly the aim of neo-liberalism: the developed economies were so developed that they could stop producing things, de-indusatrialise and live off service economies (and still grow).

For that to work, we all had to be encouraged to buy, buy, buy and consume in ways that our parents (well, certainly of my generation and older) would not have dreamt of doing. If that's the case, it makes sense that things are cheaper to encourage consumerism – which also means that they are not of the same quality as more expensive goods might have been some years ago. And that's without mentioning how obsolescence is now built into goods. So the washing machine (as I found out this week) does not last anywhere near the time that it once did and you have to shell out for a new one more frequently. So even if you don't buy into the cult of 'aspirationalism' (because consumption is what that is all about), you still have to buy things more than you once would have.

That 'aspirational' thing is funny: we'd once have called it 'keeping up with the Jonses' and laughed at those who did it. Now so many people do it – they want their homes to look like the pages of a design magazine, for instance. And of course, the rise in all those 'lifestyle' magazines and programmes and exhibitions etc etc etc help to maintain and develop that readiness to consume – and, of course, provide jobs.

Altogether, really quite depressing.

What Mintball neglected to mention about China - where stereotypically multi-national companies make things on the back of cheap labour - is that their government is deperately trying to keep "growth" going by printing money. China will almost invetitably go bust within a few short years unless something changes. That will be catastrophic for it's people and probably us as well. The government supports a banking system that lends to a myriad of broke manufacturers and the banking system does not recognise potential bad debts. These were estimated a few years ago as a huge 30% of China's GDP (and one suspects are growing). At some point, probably quite soon, the Chinese credit bubble will burst with catastrophic results.

In other news, I also forgot to say that the sky is going to fall in.

Sometime next week.

Probably.

Have you mentioned this to Wen Jiabao? I think he should be told.

Who lent them the money? I personally wouldn't fancy going over there stamping my feet and demanding repayments.

The Chinese. They apprarently managed to get a report by Ernsy & Yound retracted a while back.

The momement their high growth rate stalls will probably be the moment the chickens come home to roost (to keep with Mintball's considered line of thought).

Dally is not far off about China actually. I read a report in a Chinese magazine last time I was there (not in Chinese obviously). The Chinese government fuels growth to a large degree by borrowing from it's own citizens. They rely heavily on ordinary Chinese saving to supply money. If they stop saving then there are going to be consequences. Also, at some point they are going to have to engage with the rest of the world over patents, intellectual property and float their currency. The Yuan would be worth absolutely f*** all if it was traded. My hotel for next week is rediculously expensive compared to my last trip (in fact it's expensive full stop).
I don't imagine catastrophe there because if their economy stops growing you don't get people complaining that the bins don't get collected anymore and as they spent 5 times more on the Olympics than they do on healthcare a year nobody's going to notice longer queues at hospitals.

yet another piece of useless info from me

according to Piers Moron who was doing tv a report from China, he went to Shanghai where there are apparently 118,000 millionaires ! ( that's even more than Castleford !)

The catastrophe will come from probable the collapse of their banking and economic system. There will be untold hardship - probably mass starvation in such a generally poor country. The shock waves would doubtless reverberate around the world, with conflict likely.

What conflict? Who is mad enough to attack China? Rupert Murdoch?

The theory being, a desperate Chinese government with strife at home would try to save itself by striking out.

Razor blades anyone?

Whose theory? Yours?

China being on the verge of its own financial crisis is hardly a fringe opinion.

"Flinge", shulery?

Yep. But it's a doomsday scenario so its appealing to Dally.

China would be far more likely to crack down harshly on its own citizens than strike out at another country (presumably either Taiwan or Japan) and risk getting a damn good kicking by the US. In my opinion anyway.

The Chinese government doesn't desperately need to keep growth going, it is expanding rapidly and like all developing countries that are a long way behind the West in terms of development but have access to Western technologies in a globalised market, they will be able to get rapid 'catch up' growth for a while.

China might well hit problems in a few years time not least with inflation getting out of control but China does run large trade surpluses and it has huge reserves of foreign assets particularly US assets, so if China needs to release funds it can gradually sell those assets (not doing it too fast as that would send the dollar plummeting and reduce the value of its own holdings).

If only it were so simplistic - you ignore the desire of everyone to reduce the time it takes to do mundane tasks - this is theme that runs through a number of your arguments.

Why do people use supermarkets - because they don't want to spend hours going from shop to shop to conclude an unpleasant basic function. Why do people buy ready meals? because there are better things to do than cook - why would you want an hour cooking if you don't need to? etc.

Perhaps this is driving consumerism?

Don't knock it, please.

I'm depending on several of those magazines to keep up the promotional work

A big problem in our society is enhanced mobility eg through car usage. This allows longer jounrney's to work, frequent school runs, leisure trips, etc. All of these create an illusion of freedom but the down-side is time poverty, feeling rushed, feeling stressed. If people were to analyse their stressed and time pressured lives they would realise that it comes down to their own choosing. The extreme example is the neurotic upper middle-class non-working housewife who is always stressed even if she only has 2 kids to cope with and a nanny! Their stress comes from running round taking the kids to school, going the gym, going for coffee, going for lunch, going shopping, taking kids to activity after activity. None of which, with the exception of a bit of occassional shopping, is in any way necessary. If they made the kids walk / get the bus, play out and did some housework they'd have more time and be happier.

What is unpleasant about [ireal[/i shopping for food, with proper human interaction?

We have the peculiarity of people spending entire days wandering around dreadful shopping malls with every shop belching music with a heavy beat to get your heart rate going so that you'll spend more. It's a new form of religion. Yet with the dreadful, dehumanising, tin-box approach of supermarkets, the aim is to get people in and out as quickly as possible.

So we're all to hate shopping for food – because after all, food isn't really important and no normal person really likes it or likes cooking – and we're to spend far more time in glossy malls buying things and more things and more things again to boost the economy.



Well I do – and I work full time too.

My reasons? Because I find cooking enjoyable, challenging, relaxing and many other things. And because I can produce far better end products than any ready meal would provide, and without any crap and chemicals and other additives in it.

So in other words, because I also care about the fuel that I put into my body – just as I actually enjoy food.

And "better things to do than cook"? Like what? Watch [iEastEnders[/i?

Fortunately, the rise in obesity has absolutely no connection whatsoever with attitudes such as the one you've outlined here. Oh dearie me no.

what a load of tripe !



stress is :
not being able pay the bills
not being able to support your family
having to live with terminal illness or disability within the family unit
being unemployed and feeling useless
feeling alone in times of need

etc etc

having one of those things is bad enough - can you imagine what's it's like to have several, if not ALL these problems to face ?

No, no: stress is finding that all one's warnings about the dreadful state of society are laughed at, week in, week out, and feeling that one just has to keep going with telling people that the sky really is going to fall in sometime soon.

Yes like a lot of immigrants do, which is why our governments try to give them the support they need to live fulfilling lives, despite the criticism they get from the bigoted press.

You silly individual. I was mocking people who feel stressed for no reason.

you silly individual,so was I !