Split (1)

train · 5.86k rows

text stringlengths 0 9.69k


<poi>
Can you tell what's the alternatives for these law schools to be able to have access to these kind of?
</poi>

No, no, okay, okay, clear, clear, clear, clarification, those souls are not lost under the vast majority of non proselytizing religions. Otherwise, they would have religious imperatives to proselytize, right? Or it's not your fault and it's fine like no religion tells you those people are lost and you should feel guilty about it. So, except those who proselytize.
So, first of all, you get no theological support, and that means in your when you come to question God, you have no you have nothing, no answer for you. Second of all, It centralizes religion, because when all of the parish is excluded from religious discourse, discourse only happens enclosed, enclosed councils of like the wise men of the religion, because the the the the discourse with the community is extremely low level. Thirdly, we say the support and investment within the community is significantly less because you have limited resources. Where are you going to invest? Are you going to give couples counseling or personal health or personal direction, or, like profession specific advice to the people who have been there for a while, who are gonna stay there, who are not under threat of soldiers deep losing their religion? Or are you going to help the people where you get the highest like return on investment of saving them from the loss? This means that being in a religion which proselytizes means being second class citizen in that religion. You're always going to be prioritized lower than the people joining. You always going to be prioritized and you're going to see a race to the bottom of your theology and your religion trying to draw. Thank You
</mo>

<gw>
I think it might be true that some members of religious communities struggle with not digging couples counseling. What I think they struggle with much more is, for example, in Mosques not being being built because there's no critical laws that would demand that politically successfully. And this is not as extensional, right? It is to say, when you make when you make that community much more visible, much more vocal figures speak out, when you get people who have many men, maybe abandon their faith, convert back to their former faith, and go out and speak about it all. By the way, people who are hard to convert, right? Because oftentimes these are people who already believe that at some point or feel some sort of cultural attachment, that is a point at which you get very hard or tangible benefits, like being able to worship at all right, or being able to express your religion in public, or being able to protect it legally, right? I would trade that to campus counseling provided by my priest any day. I'm not sure of Noam and Tom, and they can explain why they wouldn't in their way. But before that, just a couple of points of the game, again, very close in conversation.
So firstly, their response to our extension is weird geometry, right? I didn't understand a lot of it, but the takeaway boom from Noam, I guess, is to say, Oh, we're talking about is not necessarily the ability to proselytize, but piety and how intensely you are investing in your religion. I think that's untrue. I think Mel is quite clear to say that oftentimes, well, can you be reminded and explain it? Because you had so many quiet okay, then stop fucking happening, right? I think Mel is quite clear in saying the number of people is the one that's going to make a difference, why cleaning their belief is not necessarily intense, right? The fact that I'm going to go out and demand something from the MP, the fact that they're going to be investing, maybe even like little amount of resources into their local mosque or their local church, is the thing that's going to make a difference, right? I think that's insanely important. And I think it's missed by the closing opposition. I think the only thing they miss, and the other thing I think they mischaracterize, is to say that most people who are going to join are going to be so different to their religion, right? I'm going to be so vastly, removed from it that you have to spend a massive amount of resources trying to, like, just read like the first passage from the Bible over and over again for next 10 years. I just don't think that's true. I think most people who convert are Surprise, surprise, people who are already proximate to their religion, right? Maybe they have, like, some ancestry Catholicism. Have heard something about it. Maybe they were caught, like in a past, and then they stop. They give us their belief because, you know, particular political stances that the church has taken, or maybe it is grew out of it, right? Those are the people that are easiest to convert. Therefore, the Core of that is, I think they're numerically the highest, like most sizable group in this debate, right? And I think those are not the people who don't have to spend resources in explaining, like, what the Bible is to but our people can have a very engaging discussions with right? Perhaps sometimes more engaging theology discussions because they are Catholics. Perhaps they come from a different perspective, because they're better than their religion at some point in the past, right? And those are people who can bring in perspective into challenge, like your theology as well. So I think that characterization is completely wrong. If they want their extension to stand. Tom have to explain. Why do you think the most sizable group of new recruits, who are completely oppositional to the religion to begin with. I just find it implausible. No, thank you. Okay, to talk about like my extension. Then. So I think Melda brings you what I think is most important materialism, right? Because this is an act of notion, right? And she tells you that the thing you care most about, probably is how you are accepted by the community that you live in, right? And she says that proselytizing is a unique mechanism that's going to make you more accepted. Right? This applies both religious minorities and countries where the majority might aggressive also also applies to religious people in secular countries where the rise of secularism oftentimes means that religious rights are not as protected. But he says, well, as much investment in new things that they would like to see. So why is this important? Right? Because I think that the biggest threat to your own religious rights and even personal safety, oftentimes, is being alone, is being a small group that can be trampled on, that doesn't necessarily have a voice in politics, that cannot necessarily organize and demand things politically or demand things as a voting block even right? I think when you convert, I know 1000s of former Christians in your neighborhood into actively practicing right. I think that gives you the ability for those people, then to even invest into your local community or demand something politically right. I think that protects your religious rights, and oftentimes also makes you a visible minority that is not seen as otherwise, which also protects you personally, your personal safety, right? I think the other thing, other way, that which uniquely benefits you, is that you become less unfamiliar. You're not seen as an outsider. Look, for example, Mormons, like in Europe, right? For the first couple of years, I would venture to say that loads of people thought it strange, right? Were like, probably averse to interact with them as they were personalizing. Loads of people had personal one on interactions with them. Realized that they are quite pleasant. They have that interesting place to say, which means they are now much more of a community. That's like, reaping some benefits from the local community. There's also much less like, much less likely to be marginalized or to be persecuted, right? I think Furthermore, you much more, much less likely to be persecuted if you're seen as a religion that is not ex that doesn't see itself as exclusive, and doesn't seem the majority of the country as being inherently born into sin, right? This is admittedly building on material from opening, but I think it's a completely different impact, right? That is to say, if you are community attaching the majority of Catholics, right, they're much assigned to persecute you, you present yourself as someone who just happens to have a different religious belief that is not immutable and that they can also adopt, right? Rather than someone who's been born into a life if you know objectively higher standard than they are, I think you're much more immune to persecution in that sense, also, they're classy, right? And this is important, because now that brings you the names. Brings it at the extension. I think as you build that in the box, most churches also big. Build things that I think are things that are seen to provide general utility to the country says, for example, religious schools, religious hospices and so on. I think when you try to detect those community projects, because there's a number of people in your communities, bigger you are. Seen as a more productive member of that community. This means you're less likely to be persecuted or less likely to be seen as an outsider, again, impacting on your personal safety, but also the kinds of services and provisions that your community can read. I didn't end the debate as an individual. Your highest priority should be whether you can or like meaningfully enjoy religious wines, whether they are protected legally, whether you have resources and facilities to worship you God. And this is the Malaysian win president's debate that brings a men for them go.


<poi>
There is a massive issue in your case that implies that this is the only way to get your benefit.
Sit down. I don't think i never said it’s an only way. I just think it's a very, very good way. I think we can have more of that's of the House we don't have to prove there's like absolutely no other ways in which we can do that. I think that's okay at best, very poorly mitigatory POI, okay.
</poi>

Lastly, Mela also tells you that even on a moral standard, even if you don't know why anything was said, you have a religious you have an obligation to proselytize. Because if you genuinely believe that, for everyone who's not religious, alternative Hellfire awaits when God's not gonna watch over them when they're playing from scratching, right? Then you're gonna gently a bad person if you do it, right? She doesn't just do levels in which this is true, right? Firstly, just because you want to be a moral person, a purely into a logical way, right? Just because you believe that, like the god, like most religions, wants you to be nice, it's quite a nice thing to save other people from hellfire. Therefore, it's probably moral thing to do that you want to do yourself. But secondly, also, just on a utilitarian, selfish basis, right? If you're saving many evil people from hellfire, you're much more likely to go to heaven yourself, right? Because it's quite a fucking amazing thing to do for other people, right? So I think God will probably appreciate it now others, and perhaps Ste’s response to this is say, Ah, but oftentimes you're not being successful and do that on mass. Well, the great deal of God is not utilitarian, right? He appreciates the effort, right? So I think from a purely selfish perspective, right? You still appreciate that, so you're still making yourself a favor, but at least trying to simulate some people from hellfire, right? So two levels, firstly, you're better protected on a personal legal level, but also secondly, on a moral level, and more likely getting to heaven. I think those are most of people, the things that religious people care about, and I'm glad to oppose you.
</gw>

<ow>
Okay, let's first discuss what is actually the way you should look at this debate? Because I think to an extent, both government teams both exaggerate, especially CG, in what you should convince an individual both don't understand religion to a large extent then understand what is the most important aspect when you make the decision of which community to join. We like to say that the question of what does it mean about the community, what are the incentives of communities towards its members. How does it treat them? Is the most important question in this debate, considering that this is your source of truth, we’re going to explain it in a second. Then we'll discuss how does proselytizing actually affect the community and your relationship within the community, religiously and just on a general level? And lastly, we will talk about like religious imperatives that both governments just seem to assert that exists when, obviously the debate assumes that not but doesn't engage with the actual material, though there will tell you why, even if you think there's some material there who's still in the debate on theological level, before that a bit and mostly is in response to CG, because they are the ones seeming the mostly that a bit of a clarification what actually is happening today.
So the first thing to note is that CG, in order to prove any part of their case required that you as an individual person is it would probably double the amount of people within your community right now, right you need 10s of 1000s of people in order to change maybe one seat in any sort of Parliament or even local elections. Forget about the fact that no one except Jesus, has ever done that, as far as I know in the history of the world, according to OG and CG, a lot of people within communities don't even do that themselves. They're trying to convince other people. You see that the like sure, maybe you'll convince throughout your life, 10, 20, 50, people from here to not being prosecuted legally because of that, the distance is huge. Not Moreover that in response to us your claims that you mostly try to engage with people who have similar beliefs to you, which means that indeed, in advance, they wouldn't vote against you, then the second extension is like, look. But you know, we interacted in the outside world and other religions. You know, you tell them they still have a chance. They can be saved, as long as they're not Catholics or not religions. You guys tell them they have a chance, but only if they join your religion. You know when you have more religious tensions when you tell Catholics they are sinners, you don't have the interest to do that in their faces when you don't try to proselytize them and convince them to join your religion, obviously, the people wait mostly moments that Jehovah's Witnesses will tell other people's otherwise, you don't have that interaction and that tension in the world. Without it, you don't have that negative sort you think that at best, you create no political impact and you create less hatred from other groups. You don't think you get any of the sort of benefits they target.
So let's discuss why you think the community itself is the most important thing. Because opening opposition or right, to an extent, a lot of things that OG talked about are not unique, right? Like the feeling of elevation you get when you convince someone else is similar to get when you just do community work and help religious authorities within your community, and just feel that you have other individuals to get closer to God by your presence there, they're also truth by putting out that. Sure, when you succeed, it feels great, but most of the time, you're likely to fail, and you feel like you have failure God that you are unsuccessful, maybe you're not believing strongly enough, and therefore this might God punish you by being unsuccessful, and you have all those doubts. We don't know specifically which of these are more likely to happen to you, but we do say the community is the most important aspect for a couple of reasons. Hey, because according to both governments, most people don't proselytize. And don't do it most of the time, meaning most of the time spent within the community and doing things within the community, all the services that Tom talked about before.
But second note that your entire life revolves around the community. This is your source of truth and answer to religious questions, which are literally more important than life or death. This is about eternal life. This is about what's right or wrong. This is about an entity that controls everything, but also because in a lot of these communities, you tend to rely on them, very, very significantly, they are your best friend. They are your safety net. And this is why the community to be there for you to a significant extent, not that comparing that to your relations with the outside world or to the political influence that you have, almost none of this is the most important aspect of this fight.
So how is it affected by proselytizing? We say a couple of things. So opening opposition the government likely, argue on which one is likely to be more like oppressive. We are not sure even why that is necessarily a bad thing, but we also don't know which one is more correct. There are incentives for both sides to apply and do that, but we told them, in general, a couple of things, A know, the community itself is directed to world, the outside world, right? They are trying to convince other people to join, not to keep you into the same extent. That means that on the trade off, they are more likely to put money, put resources, put the priests or the people who are new in the community, to try and give guidance to people who are new there, and not someone who's been there for the last five years. They have to make sure they're appealing to them second on your work, when you consolidate, you know that you are further away from your community through a large amount of time. If it is your job if you’re one of the I know 10, 20 I don't know what the government thinks it is. Percent of the people who do it, that means on your daily basis, you are far away from the community. You are far away from your services. They think, on a general level, the community is not incentivized to the same extent to take care of you and to accept you and help you while taking a second promise, but second to say, on this theological level, you are harmed significantly, because not what government case conditions actually are. Because when OG tells you, yeah, you try to be more flexible when you're trying to convince and define the common ground. That means that you compromise on religious aspects, not to the alternative that you have to compete with others. You compete for that common ground. It is a waste to the buffer in which every community makes more and more religious concessions to bring people in on the expense of your religiousness, on the expense of the following rules, on the expense of making sure the community adheres to the doctrine that God Jubilee has given them, because they have to draw in masses of people all the time, and because they have to compete with other religions as well. This is why you compromise the religious and theology itself when you do that, before we respond to the OG about asking yourself OG,


<poi>
So for some classes in the community, if you believe generally the message they are preaching to be effective at it, and the community doesn't provide them the level of service that they're promising to new members. The sacrifice of the community is to be terrible and ineffective when it isn't an incentive to do that.
</poi>

No, this isn't comparable. Instead, they still have some incentive to care about the people who are in there. But if you ask the question, Who is more important, the person is being the community for 5 years. He's more capped from the entire world outside. He has no relationship, or the person who's just now joined the community and is unsure. Obviously all the resources are always going to be go to the new members. Sure, there is a risk of some moving somebody to give them nothing, but you need to give them only enough to keep them in on the trade off of getting also new numbers in significant numbers, not only if they send you a word for somebody telling you that this is the word of God, then again, they change how you view religion yourself and say, This is a completely unpin word.
But then OG tell look between proselytize you ask yourself, and this is exactly where no analysis comes in. This is just not what it looks like. There are not debates about what theology is. It's convincing people they are sinners and religion would help them not forget to ask your questions to that extent. But on a third level, we just say that the new people who are joining are less likely to be as malicious as you and are more likely to corrupt the religion when opening opposition government they're not completely oppositional. That is true they still further away. So you say that all all of those levels your harm or your ability to access the community to get theological answers from the community and to leave as a religious person in a good and fulfilling way for alls please I pause.
</ow>
Motion: This House Believes That China should seek to curb debt at the expense of economic growth.

<pm>
PM Speech Transcript:
We and the opening government believe that Keynesian economics can only work in so far that you actually have the needs for these roads. Have the needs for these cumin states investments in the first place? The problem is, once you already have developed enough cities, enough roads, enough infrastructure and stuff like that, the additional marginal benefit of investing in the economy like this is going to fruit you less. How you say economical benefits under ourselves. We believe that in this sort of scenario, then the transition in the rational transition of how you say countries like China and what countries have done needs to become how you say, more fiscally conservative, in a sense. But notice that this is not how you say. This is not actormotion, because so this means that the majority of impacts that we're going to prove to you is going to also rely on lives of people in China also lives on people over the world who can suffer an economical crisis, which is very likely for people on the path for spending more than we can actually say, and stuff with that couple of points in my speech. One is why countries in One Belt, One Road, and countries that China has influence over will be fucked over more second of how this interacts with dollarization, and why this necessarily leads to economical crisis, or at least crisis of liquidity, which is very harmful. And fourthly, why the environment will get the brunt of it, and why we cannot afford this in the status quo.
So why is the risk of collapse first, very obviously likely, at least, to the economical turmoil, then going into another crisis. So we believe that this debt and Alliance debt is required by a large sum of money, which is not trivial by any means. It is also how they say. There is also a large domino effect that can happen in this sort of scenario where a lot of countries are connected with China, either by China holding their debt, or China holding investment in their country, or they're owing money to China, which is the risk of collapse, is also risking to collapse everybody around it also that how you say growth is necessarily slowing down. This is not something that how you say you can keep at seven to 8% which is the highest China has, which necessarily means that at some point, this is the austerity of capitalism. Sometimes you cannot grow more than something at a certain percent. But still, on our side of the house, we don't believe that growth is 0% growth is lower, obviously, but this means that China, with the other R side of the house, thinks much more how you say strictly whether the project is worthwhile to invest in whether how you say spending this money is actually going to bear with fruit and not how do you say investing in a how you say country like Montenegro, who everybody said that is not going to be able to return to money and stuff like that. And this becomes even more important when I go into my next speech to notice that the Chinese foreign policy, the thing that is likely to become, there are several hubs, is a lot of spending on foreign policy, which is like a Belt and Road Initiative and stuff like that. The largest issue, yes,


<poi>
like, who should the policies in support and why?
</poi>

I mean, we support everything. Look at the issue. The issues. The most likely thing that they're going to come they're going to cost spending. The most likely scenario where they cost spending is to cut into large projects that are inefficient, either inward inside of the country, building a lot of infrastructure there, then only to their own, how you say, companies and so what exactly, or secondly, to the foreign countries and governance established, I think China has done this, doing this a bit recklessly, in terms of how you say, noticing and like, accepting things that will not necessarily bring them that as much money, but will bring them influences of that. We believe that under the status quo, where you how to say, have a loss of belief in Chinese currency and stuff like that, and loss of belief in Chinese economy, which can happen if you the depth how do you say starts starts going up.
We believe that this breeds more meddling, more how to say, tensions between China and countries that owe money to China, because this is their only way to get liquidity to actually pay off the debtors and actually continue on the path of not economic crisis, which means overall, for the countries that are involved with China, this will be much worse, insofar that China will khadisa Push much more for regime changes, meddling, horrible policy that will benefit the Chinese government, but not the government of these countries in in a sense of a way but notice that also can’t we see, why are they not doing it now? Oh. They could do it on both sides. Notice that this is a risk strategy, because breeds antagonism. But this suddenly becomes much more significant when this currency is the thing that is going to currency make your economy collapse or not collapse. And there are several houses, there's risks connected to this. But if they do it without any reason, they would how to say, have suffered harmfully. They have to do it because they have to have liquidity. They have to have money to pay it off. This means it's much more interesting interest of them to start bullying countries and be horrible, which is horrible because this is not Negro motion.
Second of all dollarization, and this is a big issue starting with this, but that's fine. So we believe the majority of debt is usually correlated between the foreign currency, and currently the largest like trading currency in the world is dollar and stuff, and it's not likely to change in the future, which means that everything that China has is already correlated. It's almost always correlated with Yuan. And how Yuan interacts with the dollar. If people start losing currency in the belief that the Chinese government is in cars, isn't going to print as many is going to control therefore their their monetary policy. In a good way, or that they're going to be able to pay their debts. This means that the valuation that currency devaluation in comparison to dollar happens, which means that it expediates The crisis that is already coming, which means that after a certain point, you reach a point of no return where people stop believing that Yuan is going to be a fruitful currency, because in the future, China will have to print more money, do horrible stuff, and stuff like that. This is foreign help, because every loan that is now connected to Yuan, similarly, which is connected to One Belt One Road, is also going down with this and fucking over these countries in in in the beginning. And also this means that there is a lot a lot less foreign loans and foreign investment wanting to give money to China with the rise in debt and with the threat. And also, this is a correlation with the threat of US actually meddling and starting to to fuck you over, because this is a vested interest of the US under the status quo and will probably continue. So this is why US might be able to do this, but China can't do this under the status quo in the short situation. But notice that usually the expense, where this comes at the expense of is if you want to push for economical growth despite the rise in cost, need to do value the cost elsewhere and push for growth elsewhere. This usually means environmental degradation, which is horrible, because China is on the path of bettering the environment, because people have pushed for, like like, horrible smoke against horrible small that is happening in Shanghai, that we all experienced, went to zero and stuff like that. And we need we believe. We believe in under this sort of situation, it's much more likely for China if they cannot sustain when they say, if they have to push for returning money under after some settled time, to reverse the policies, to open more coal plants and stuff like which is horrible, because if we believe that climate science, we should in the next 10 years, if you don't curb our emissions, this means we fuck over the whole world, and especially the developing world. Who will be worse? Feel the world be worse off on the research journey. So under their side, we have couple of problems. First of all, the risk of economical crisis toppling down a lot of people, which we are bound to have because of the economy operates on boom and bust cycles. If it comes from China, it will fuck over many more countries. And secondly, if we don't curb the environmental degradation, which is likely to not happen if we if if this policy doesn't pay, anybody likely to happen if this policy doesn’t pass means that we we reverse something damaged humanity and make us so this where you should go to opening government. Thank you.
</pm>

<lo>
</lo>

<dpm>
Let’s be very clear on two things. The first one is, what do we support? Opening opposition correctly pointed out that they do not have to defend every single policy that China enacts in the status quo. In a similar fashion. What we can say that we will probably prioritize curving back policies which have the most detrimental harm, in accordance to the logic you hear in our first page. What is this? Probably one of the examples would be the curving of the massive overproduction of steel and coal in the global economy. Probably it will be a curving of housing loans, which have grown exponentially in China, especially over the last five years, less so than shadow banking, which has decreased, in fact, over the last two to three years. But as Milo says, we would in fact do both. The second thing then, therefore, is, what is the context this is this debate is basing because what you hear in the previous speech is a growth mischaracterization of both the state of the Chinese but also the global economy, now, in terms of the global economy. Well, China's expansionary policies made a lot of sense in the decade of the global recession. At this point, you have growth rates of largely increasing 3% a year in the Western world. At the same time with Chinese growth has, anyways, slowed down.
Secondly, but the only reason they give us on this, yeah, but this might be what's actually keeping up global growth, but to an extent that Chinese Chinese investments do, do incentivize growth, the disregard the analysis Milos gives at the beginning of his speech, I mean spending uncontrollably in building roads, building houses, building infrastructure, makes a lot of sense. At a point where you have very few appeals. When the economy is relatively developed, it makes less and less sense. That is why you have numerous ghost cities, an illustrative example of what I'm talking about in China. But crucially, what this means is the construction companies which built those ghost cities cannot sell those apartments, and they did take on debt to be able to build those apartments.
Now there are two options. Option one, those companies will default. There is a limited shock to their suppliers or two. And what exists in the status quo? The Chinese government essentially forgives or pays off the debt on their behalf. Now this makes sense at a point in which you have growth which is based on a strong multiplier analysis. He gives not responded to. However, when your growth is based on also largely financing vanity project with limited ROI, there's only so much money you have, the only real response we get to this is China has significant FX reserves. What at least two responses to this? Firstly, a lot of these risks in the economy are systemic, as we point out. So because a lot of them are internal, which means that someone can pay their debt, it cascades down the economy, which means a lot of these risks are very, very correlated. But secondly, just a point of numbers, Chinese foreign currency reserves have been decreasing. They're around $3.1 billion I Googled this yesterday. Check if you don't believe me, the level of debt, as you saw in the influence, is somewhat normal, 40 trillion. There is a question of scale. Considering my explanation of risk, you have a very, very high level of risk.
Now, the one response they could make, but they haven't made implicitly, but if you read it to your note, you can believe it is yet. But this is different once they are investing in developing countries, because there are the multiplier logic I described could still apply at least for those countries. A few things I want to say. Firstly, a lot of these projects aren't financed on an economic basis, but they're more finance on a political basis. That's why a lot of these countries have not been able to pay off Chinese debts in for a lot of these investments into part of one Belmont Road, Eritrea being a large example of this, were a few major infrastructure areas were nationalized by the Chinese government. The problem is, sure you're able to get your debt back that way, but you build a project that was relatively unsustainable to begin with, so hence you won't be making recouping that investment in any possible way. Secondly, there's a lot of other bad things to this, like propping up dictatorial regimes, like low benefits for the local populations, which they do not take into health. Then the final point on the risk of a global trade war, if anything, I will point out that the trade war with China is exactly a result of this kind of policy. So when US politicians, and it isn't just Donald Trump, a lot of reputable politicians beforehand that pointed out that China is effectively a currency manipulator. The reason from where that stands is this sort of policy. So if anything, ramping back on this would be would not only contribute to a more sustainable global system, but would what would what would contribute to a disengagement in harsh relations with the People's Republic of China.
So therefore, on a lot of issues which exist. One thing I do want to point out that on our side of the house, you will still have a large level of growth in the Chinese economy. Why is this the case? A few reasons. One, as I pointed out, they did conveniently build a lot of infrastructure over the past past several decades. Secondly, you have a large domestic demand that is fairly organic. So capitalism, for all its worst things, has managed to pull out 800 million people out of poverty in the PRC over the last couple of decades. But this also means there's very few left to pull out of poverty, which means you again get a declining ROI, as we point out. I'll take closing in 20 seconds. What this crucially means, then, is that you have a level of demand which was able to keep this level of growth trivially. Also you just have a lot of people, 1.3 million billion people, makes up for a lot of demand. You have a relatively strong private sector in the current firms that are not exposed to the kind of over leveraging we have described in our speech. So you will get a lot of growth. You will get a lot of growth happening on both sides. It will just be slightly lower on ours, at the expense of overall stabilization, closing.


<poi>
That is only problematic if you can’t pay it we on closing opposition believe in modern monetary theory, you can always just pull in for money to pay the debt with.
</poi>

Yeah I mean then you end up? Yes, and that's an interesting theory. One thing I would point out is a problem with it. In a largely exported driven economy like the Chinese one, you will get branded a currency manipulator. Hence you will end up with huge taverns on your goods. So sure you can print the money, but it will essentially be worthless in the economy you want to describe. It's still a really interesting theory, just poor economic knowledge.
Anyways, further on this, then what essentially the result of the policy. One other thing I do want to point out is in terms of internal Chinese stability, something Milos points out that never gets a response to, which is a lot. So one point he makes is on the environment and how overgrowth in China is damaging to the global environment, and as much as the argument is boring, like all arguments about the environment, is not a reason why it shouldn't be credited. The second thing I would point out is that the broader populace is also, to an extent, supportive of this, where they are willing to accept lower economic growth, or, let's say, less smoke in their cities. So you will have a large buy in of the Chinese population. That means the the CCP will have no, no sort of large issues in implement this policy. So overall, the Chinese economy is drastically over leveraged. It is at risk of default of large companies in the public sector. Probably the only way to solve it is, as closing all points out, there are many issues which I describe in the answer to my POI, very powerful.
</dpm>

<dlo>
Thank you. I want to talk about three things in this speech. First, I want to talk about the plausibility of default. Secondly, I want to talk about the international effects of this policy. And lastly, I want to talk about domestic Chinese effects to begin with, plausibility of default. I want to engage with each argument that they provided as to why they think default is going to happen. The first reason that they provided was that there's too much investment in fruitless Uber projects, and as a consequence, you default. As a result. The difficulty with this argument is, as series concedes himself that they have securitized a significant amount of debt, so there are physical objects which are the collateral for that debt, which they can claim in the instance of a default or a failure to pay a loan. Siri's claim here is that these aren't productive assets. But I want you to consider the wide range of these kind of assets. Includes these extra long Sri Lankan ports, which are essential for shipping in the region, includes things like the development of industry, which is Central Europe, which is the underdeveloped region, which has massive potential for growth. So it's not enough for Siri to just assert to us that these are bad projects. And furthermore, if things get really bad, you could just sell off that asset in the future to recoup that debt. So that wasn't a proper response.
The second thing that they identified in their thanks is that they built too much, too much infrastructure within China itself. Look, China's already caught on to this. When ghost city started to appear in the 1990s the Chinese government started to step back because they realized that they couldn't populate all the infrastructure spending that they have no thank you. So that's just not true. That is not the status quo. And furthermore, I think it's completely reasonable for John and I to say that we should support economic growth in different ways. So, for instance, train workers in order to build a more productive economy in the long run.
What was the solution that we provided on our side of the house? I think this is fairly sensible. Sensible in the case of this debt is USD. You can sell the USD denominated debt that the US government already wants you to be able to pay that off. No. Thank you. In terms of printing out rift, I think that's a fairly sensible solution, because in many of these circumstances, inflationary effects aren't as large as they suggest. No. Thank you. Their claim is that the inflation means that they will be have tariffs put on them. But I think this is remarkably unlikely for a couple of reasons.
The first reason I want to point out their thank you is because in many of these circumstances, China was previously a currency manipulator, but only ever switched for their own domestic reasons as they transition towards a more skilled economy and external pressure never backed up. The second thing that I want to point out is that the implication of their policy is giving that win to Trump. So the long run, they're going to lead to those same types of tariffs, which are going to be equally harmful and massively damaging. So the takeaway at the end of this argument is that default isn't that likely, and we can solve it in other ways. Why then do we need to corrupt the our side? Because even if you need to back off, eventually, problems do exist in Europe. They say that they don't. But look at populism leading to massive trade tariffs around the world, Brexit and other trade wars, which are likely to inflame the economy at the current situation, particularly for investors who see other countries and country as an investment risk, given the fascism that is rising.
Claim Number two international effects, I want to start off with the easy claims to deal with on the opening opposition side. First, we say that this leads to bullying countries. This is the status quo. Regardless of whether or not they're invested in a board, they will always act in a geopolitically manipulative way. And the reason why is because, as identified OBOR is a political project as well, so bullying will happen regardless. For instance, in Australia, the Chinese government literally funded political parties to try and change the democratic outcomes of those situations. So I think that this kind of interference would happen regardless. But the second thing that I want to point out is that OBOR is actually massively beneficial, if that facilitates global trade, even if you take losses in the short run, both personally and on the surrounding countries who are part of a war, the connection of that trade route means that there's radically more infrastructure to trade along the route itself, meaning that Sri Lanka can easily trade to Europe and Africa, which facilitates their growth in the long run. No thank you. Lastly, I want to point out that it's probably too late for us to back out on World War. Many countries have already reoriented their economies by putting massive amounts of government spending into building infrastructure or into this project, so that will just be a sub cost that is wasted and still hurts those countries, in fact, more so to back off now.
Next we talk about the environment. No, thanks. I know the easy response here on the environment is that China is actually one of the most environmentally responsible countries in the world. They signed the Paris Accords. No thank you. And actually comply with them, and they have the greatest amount of investment in green energy in the world. And do you know what happens when you reduce their economic growth? They have less money to put into green energy. No, thank you. Green Energy is a better solution, because the collective action problem which faces the world will exist regardless of whether China decreases the emissions and perhaps installs it from doomsday in 10 years to 12 years. The more viable solution is to allow every country transition into a better system. So what do we tell you in John's speech? John. Speech was very particular, because it explained to you the massive harms of approved from this policy, that the reduction of production in steel and oil, for instance, isn't one that is fruitless, but rather is one that's going to lead to direct knock on effects where other countries who buy those goods no thank you for manufacturing of their own goods, will no longer be able to facilitate their own trade. So as a massive effect around the economy, policies like cracking down on shadow banking industry actually means that people who have the mortgages leveraging to shadow banking will lose the mortgages, and therefore that will cause a massive decrease in consumer confidence and consumer investment policies such as, sorry, so the policies that are likely to come out from the Open Government are likely to cause larger financial harms in the larger and decrease the amount of investor competency at large perfect. Closing.


<poi>
The productivity of the Belt and Road Initiative depends on all of it succeeding. The things are not separately as valued. So when one of them fails, that leads to the question.
</poi>

no, that's incorrect, because the infrastructure still exists. Even if the industry within a particular country fails, the way of trying to move goods between them still exists, and that means that surrounding countries who rely on that trade network are stable, still able to leverage that by a bit.
What is the harm in international sphere? I think that the problem is that this causes a massive justification for the trade war. So this means that populists like Trump are likely to be able to sell this narrative again and again, which reduces economic growth again, and particularly given the fragile state of the economy, this will lead to significant knock on effects that will hurt everyone. Lastly, on domestic Chinese effects, they claim that investor confidence is going to fall. I have a few different responses. First of all, I want to point out that you can create massive growth within China by this policy, because even though this may be a short term hit, things like printing out more Iran will actually decrease the cost of them exporting goods, which means that there's more foreign investment that goes in because they become a more productive manufacturer. So it's actually likely that you get increased investment because they become better exporters. But moreover, we told you that this leads to less loans when state loan enterprises and other banks start to fail, that means that they become reluctant to provide loans in the fear that they might fail. So that stalls the entire Chinese economy, which is, by the way, a massive purchaser of the global economy, both collapsing the Chinese economy and international economy.
The last thing I want to mention is that this is probably quite bad, because Xi Jinping is going to lose a lot of domestic popularity, and when transitions happen, that leads to lots of corruption. Purchase. Their claim is, ah, but we reduce smoke, so people will be happy. The only way you reduce smoke is by cutting a massive amount of cars in Beijing and Shanghai, which would never happen because that stalls our economy. What is the takeaway from top half of this debate, while opening government has good intentions, the consequence of this policy is billions of Chinese people suffering in a massive reduction in consumer spending, both in China and abroad, leading to financial recession everywhere that makes the page. Thank you.
</dlo>

<mg>
So so far, we've heard a lot of analysis on why economical collapse is bad. While that analysis is very engaging, it is hardly on flashing this debate, because both sides seem to agree that economical collapse will be a highly undesirable outcome. And so all that's left to debate in this debate is on which side is economical collapse more like. Please note that any attempts to like throwing out economical collapses, like edge outcome or black swan event, irrelevant on both sides, because both sides have conceded that China is teetering on the verge of economic collapse. And the question is, what do we do about so therefore my good point will be, why? Why China will be an economic collapse, collapse? Should the status quo continue? And secondly, why China won't collapse economically under our side of the Melchizedek. How convenient. Before that few points involved.
So the first idea is there won't be a collapse. When, When? When? Even if this, even if this happens, because there is collateral value in these bonds. First of all, note that a lot of the logic and arguments that you get from a about. Losing trust in the Chinese government, losing trust. And it's like Fidelity Investments, etc, having significantly more under our side of the motion when it downsizes more significantly. And so therefore saying there exists collateral is actually even truer. That's where collapse happens significantly more on our side. Secondly, please note that collateral value is greatly diminished because they run to say, but it's still valuable, right? A road is still a road, but still good is not good enough. In economics, someone bet a sum of money on this project, because the debt is essentially a bet. Someone bet on this project making X amount of money, and if it makes a 10 of the X, then it is useless. It is worthless, and it leads to economical collapse. And let me tell you that road between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan is not as useful when Belt and Road doesn't happen. That port in, that port in in, sorry that that port in Africa is not as useful when Belt and Road didn't happen.
So, so, and secondly, we get this idea of green energy. We think this is really just trying to run as far as and fast as they can from the debate, because transitioning to green energy does lead to a slowing in economic growth, and therefore economic policy supported under their side. And the idea that Xi Jinping will fall was a throwaway point on their side. So if you didn't spend time on it, I won’t.
Okay, so why would China collapse? Should the status quo continue? We say there this is a highly complicated BRI like Belt and Road initiative, highly complicated project likely to collapse. Why is that? Firstly, an undervaluation of cost. Why is that? First of all, risk assessment is incredibly hard. Second of all, please note that the risk assessment here depends on the cooperation of these governments, and those governments tend to be unstable. It's extremely hard for the for China to to quantify how likely a government is to fall. Thirdly, though, even if they were to quantify initially, that chaotic system has already shifted, because one of the things that destabilizes those very countries is opposition to Belt and Road within them, and so therefore instability increases even further. Fourthly, note, there's an information asymmetry with three actors, and two of them are predisposed to life. The three actors are the government receiving this project, which had the incentive to say, it's simpler, it's easier, and has all the incentive to do that because they want the court to happen, and when they believe, once the project will start, it will be finished to completion.
Secondly, and second of all, the contractors, they want to be on their next step in the party. They want to succeed. And since this is very long term project, being good at the beginning is all it takes. Is just like the banking crisis government said, Why? Because you're measured short term and short term, low valuations are success. Lastly, please note another chaotic effect here is the desire of other superpowers to thwart the project, therefore tempting countries away from their from their engagement with the product. Same thing happens with an overvaluation of the benefits of the product. Again, it's extremely hard to predict value. There is an interest of both of the actors which possess the asymmetrical information to lie and say that the project will be more valuable than it is. The numbers of growth that we perceive for these African for Namibia are higher than the ones that are, that are going to be there, etc, etc, and the interest, again, of the contractors and as a product.
Now what's even more dangerous about this is that those risks interact. They don't add to one another. They multiply with one another, and that is because of the inherent interdependency of the Belt and Road Initiative. Because if you want to get something from A to B, you have from A to C, you had better have B, C, D, and all of the other links along the way in place. For example, once the if the Pakistan, if the Pakistani passage falls through the Belt and Road Initiative, dramatic swaths of the East African part of Belt and Road Initiative become almost completely irrelevant. And so those risks interact in a way that a lot of crucial links to default make the other links completely lacking in value. And so therefore, we think it's extremely it's extremely hard to evaluate the cost and benefit of this project, or when a project benefit doesn't meet its cost, that's when you have risk, because a debt is essentially a bet that with the money you took, you can make more than the than the than bringing that money back, plus interest, but if you didn't make as much money as you expected to make, you can't deliver on that obligation, and you have to default on that debt. I hope that was also intelligible to my average voter, which seems to have been forgotten in this debate.
Secondly, we say a lot of diminishing. A lot of the things that they even agree with about the diminishing productivity of China still over becoming less and less efficient, a lack of creative destruction and a lack of ability for the Chinese economy to adapt and the trade war with the United States are also things which would harm Chinese ability to funnel money from other places into that project. I talked about why we get stability on our side, but before that closing

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.