But while the preschooler wouldn't be able not to put on a wide grin, these people were dead serious.
There is also the case of the ISS and the intergovermental agreement behind it where in article 5. it is clearly stated that: "each partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its nationals"
And finally the most iportant is the outer space treaty, signed by most of the states in the world, article 8.:
"State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body"[2]
What is your government if I may ask?
[0] https://maxius.nl/verdrag-van-de-verenigde-naties-inzake-het... [1] https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Ex... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
A plain example why you need to grab these institutions by the balls with tight restrictions or they run amok. They had the idea for their "space theory" from the NSA, allegedly, but I never heard of anything like this. Perhaps their American colleagues thought it to be too embarrassing to bring forward.
I would have difficulties to find examples from recent years when the constitutions was undermined that effectively. How should I convince anyone that it isn't a complete joke?
But the humanitarian cost is high. The US is a bit better, maybe, but is also severely lacking on the humanitarian front (think poverty, homelessness, crime, substance abuse, suppression / lack of democracy, health care, education, debts, etc). The US could be doing so much better for their own people but because they choose to spend so much on the military and have tax laws that prevent the rich people and businesses from contributing, nothing is left for their own people. Mid- to long-term it means the country will be left behind.
(disclaimer: I'm no economist nor an American, I'm sure someone else knows all the nuances)
If often hear the economic growth must be due to surveillance and an autocratic regime, a laughable suggestion, although often shared by my unimaginitive government (Europe).
The third reich also had a booming economy. War creates massive economic opportunity. Slavery too. But somehow increased governmental control is the key for economic success? Doubtful at least.
The success of China is pretty straight forward. They had very cheap workers and hungry foreign consumers. I don't see how you wouldn't get any profit out of that situation. But no, it certainly must be due to complete systemic differences instead of economical ones.
I don't think you can rule out the government as a factor, there's plenty of cheap workers in the world that want money.
Their government should be given credit for basic competence, which our leaders don't seem to have.
Their government has consistently put major support behind key industrial sectors and built out infrastructure that enabled industrial growth.
Just as an example, China now has more high-speed rail than the rest of the world combined. They are the world's leading manufacturer of solar panels, electric vehicles, etc. There are several countries with equal or better starting positions, yet no achieving equivalent economic growth.
Meanwhile holders of the highest office in US/UK are busy with Brexit, building a wall, and denying climate change exists.
I was not seeking to criticize China (though I will if it makes sense to) but to make the observation for parent's sake that the Chinese gov does in fact play it's hand in the economy.
Still, you cannot say they didn't grab the opportunities and have indeed build up significant industrial infrastructure. Maybe a strong central government is currently required to keep the peace for so many different people, but the tendency to see Chinas governmental system as some form of panacea for all problems is a bit off in my opinion.
Given more time to develop, I believe the authority will decrease and that this process actually gives more room for even more opportunities.
Currency manipulation is not really a useful concept.
The Great Depression in the US was only great because of some really stupid policy decisions. So some other countries avoiding the worst of that Depression doesn't mean they had Great policy, just that they were slightly less stupid in that regard.
But the elephant in the room is does real innovation require freedom? So far China had been unable to come any where close to the US in innovation, and that's the major driver of growth for a developed nation. At some point they may just hit the wall.
Does china need to innovate? They have very well oiled structures for 'borrowing' other countries' ip. That was all fun and games when their military was not so great, but we're back to competing with them. They can also research in areas that seem ethically and morally dubious to the west, they will always have the edge there.
The US have had enough immigration, legal and illegal, that the aging baby-boomers (much milder than what China has to face to begin with) won't be as bad.
I don't remember the US competing with China at any point in its history. China's been a wreck since 1800 or so. China not being a wreck is a fairly new thing, and China being a player on the world stage is unique. In my lifetime, people used the expression "starving kids in China" to denote incredibly poor people.
Demographics... pretty much all civilized peoples have experienced demographic collapse. The US is no different.
I don't think you can get away with claiming that the extraordinary transformation of China since 1982 demonstrates Chinese government policies better promote economic development than the policies of western governments - I think it can only be used to argue that they are better than the Chinese government policies prior to 1982.
I don't think it's sensible to make claims about what is making China rich, without examining what made it poor.
You can probably think of several countries in the world that are having issues with state violence being too often to control people in petty matters.
Getting laws right and changing them are both very hard. Throwing around state violence as a means to get people to do/not do something should be a last resort.
I'd think that a reasonable limit would be the point above a planet where you can maintain a stable orbit for some length of time.