Visualizing China's Keynesian Utopia (In 63 Seconds)

The Chinese have taken Keynes' utopian dream of 'digging a hole and filling it back in' to a whole new level of excess...

Mr Keynes would say it does not matter what projects we chose. Digging holes and refilling them is better than doing nothing, after all we need to get people to work.

But projects like digging needless holes, or any project which exists just to create a job, does no one any favours. It will employ some people for a little while, but it delays the structural adjustment that the economy needs to undergo.

Such projects provide only temporary jobs in areas requiring skills the market does not demand. To a large degree, poorly designed stimulus, only prolongs the pain. In order for fiscal expansion to work most effectively, the jobs it creates must provide some certainty that people will be employed for the medium to long-term. In order to boost consumer demand, people need to feel secure about the future as well as the present - otherwise they will save as much of their income as possible.

So if digging needless holes (and filling them back in) 'works' then why not build entire needless cities...

And then a few years later, raze them to the ground!

Those buildings have been standing there for years with no one to buy or rent.

What goes up - on malinvested credit expansion, must come down - on lack of real demand...

We're gonna need moar credit.

Comments

DownWithYogaPants remain calm Mon, 05/28/2018 - 21:43 Permalink

Looks like they skimped on the demolition and just cut the foundations with no worry about the buildings tipping over.

Even just just being cheap with the charges causes a less than perfect tumble of the buildings.  Take note of that those of you who believe the official line on how the buildings come down on 9-11.  Do you really think some random hit on the buildings by an aircraft would do such a neat job?  

In reply to by remain calm

Enginer01 Able Ape Mon, 05/28/2018 - 20:59 Permalink

keep in mind that minus the support of the central stairs and elevators, the floors were only supported well enough to hold their own weight.  When all that burning fuel weakened the Twin Towers top floor, it apparently pancaked downward, overloading the attachments for each floor below, and dropping the accumulating mass to below the eighth floor.  With no internal stiffening, the whole structure fell. 

In reply to by Able Ape

Enginer01 Able Ape Mon, 05/28/2018 - 20:59 Permalink

keep in mind that minus the support of the central stairs and elevators, the floors were only supported well enough to hold their own weight.  When all that burning fuel weakened the Twin Towers top floor, it apparently pancaked downward, overloading the attachments for each floor below, and dropping the accumulating mass to below the eighth floor.  With no internal stiffening, the whole structure fell. 

In reply to by Able Ape

ldd Enginer01 Mon, 05/28/2018 - 21:06 Permalink

are you sure you are an engineer? as anyone looking at the the structure NOT EVEN THE BLUEPRINTS but just a simple layout drawing can deduce that you do not understand what you speak.

and do you understand the immense wind load on buildings that large? and how structurally strong the buildings would have been.

"the floors were only supported well enough to hold their own weight."

what???

In reply to by Enginer01

tmosley Bay of Pigs Mon, 05/28/2018 - 19:45 Permalink

That is an assertion, not an argument.

I argue that WTC 7 was brought down by catastrophic undermining (ie sapping) as 1 and 2 collapsing caused the subway system that went from there to WTC 7 was primed to become the largest blast furnace ever constructed by man, breaking down concrete and melting metal with the power of a small nuclear weapon (the combined potential energy in the two towers was about 1kt IIRC--did the calculation years ago).

In reply to by Bay of Pigs

ldd pods Mon, 05/28/2018 - 21:00 Permalink

tmos,

i can say unequivocally - that you do NOT understand how buildings are designed or constructed NOR the properties of materials.

"Failure of the clamps holding up the floors would not cause the towers to tip over. You would literally have to nuke the tower from the outside to get it to fall over on its side."

clamps???

save yourself some embarrassment and choose to comment on things you may have an inkling of understanding.

i am peturbed you disturbed my relaxing summer vacance!

In reply to by pods

tmosley ldd Mon, 05/28/2018 - 22:46 Permalink

Did that feel like it was an argument to you?

Because it wasn't an argument.

Please educate yourself. The Twin Towers employed a unique construction method which lead to a unique method of failure. Just saying "durr u dun unnerstand" is not enough.

In reply to by ldd

Casey Stengel ldd Tue, 05/29/2018 - 00:57 Permalink

ldd, thank you. "clamp???" I'm a structural steel inspector and I look at the floor and shake my head every time I hear someone talking about this. They read the Popular Mechanics article on 911 and suddenly they are experts on the D1.1 codebook.

In reply to by ldd