The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The Trojan Horse has been let in! That is a very visual metaphor, saying a lot in just a couple of words.

I liked what Terril's informant had to say about interests in the Obama administration wanting big inflation to occur in the USA. It makes sense. The Obama administration doesn't seem to care about creating a budget to operate from nor creating an enormous debt hopelessly spiraling out of control, a debt so fantastically large that it can never be paid back - using today's currency.

Those are the key words, using today's currency! They have no intention of using today's currency but will use tomorrow's hyper-inflated currency!!

Perhaps, though China is in control, the Obama administration has a strategy to enable the US government to call some of the shots. The Obama administration could be staging a "rear guard action" behind enemy lines in doing everything possible to wreck our currency and cause hyper-inflation of the US dollar. This would align with the goals of the Marxist wing of their movement which believes that the US has been responsible for most of the major maladies of the world and that US wealth was accumulated through the labors of and the at the expense of the working class.

Obama and the powers behind his administration could be thinking about the deficit in the following manner: The deficit is 16 trillion, let it run to 20 trillion, 25 trillion... whatever it takes to grow our economy but make sure the US currency gets weaker and weaker. When the time is ripe, the US government will pay off its debt, no matter how large, with super inflated paper money.

This method of doing things is a sort of amalgamation of standard bankruptcy procedures and hitting the reset button and declaring all debts cancelled.

It provides a gradient approach where similar results to a total reset can be achieved with the advantage that in dealing with hyper inflated currency with a rapidly diminishing value, the reset can be eased into over a period of time and without formally declaring bankruptcy.

The hyper inflation strategy totally explains why the Obama administration has no interest in balancing a budget or even approving a budget and they are totally oblivious to debt reduction and actually want the debt to become insurmountable. It makes a lot of sense and explains what otherwise would be unexplainable!!

Borrow your way to wealth, using ever increasing amounts of money with no backing. Don't worry about the size of the debt. Whatever the debt is, it will be paid off in hyper-inflated currency. This is the road to fair distribution of assets world wide! Brilliant except for the fact that it can't work.
Lakey

Lakey,

Think it through . . . the strategy you cite above is the route to USA joining the banana republic class.

The colossal loss of value of the $$ will result in it having to buy foreign currency to import what it needs.

What is in the works is the loss of the USA position as the exclusive currency of international trade settlement and the marker of "foreign currency reserves."

The US is headed to being just another country having to buy what it imports with a "currency" that is acceptable to the producer of the goods being purchased.

Think what that means to US hegemony!!!!

R

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Umm, check my wording. It did not challenge you, but challenged the data you cited . . . .

I see they are citing citing 11 stories high in the article to call it a "skyscraper" . . . Christ, 11 stories is something you'd trip over in Manhattan. We've got old 110+ year old "townhouses" that high here.

A few very High new buildings is interesting, of course . . . the Chinese are way behind on height . . . try Malaysia and Dubai Malaysia has two twins higher than anything in China.

They don't have just a few, their concentration is greater than that of Chicago and 80% of that of NYC (see below). The new Shanghai Tower now under construction will be about 2072' tall and 128 floors. This beats anything in Malaysia and will give China the second tallest building in the world behind Dubai's unprecedented 2722' Tower!

They absolutely have their facts wrong on absolute numbers of buildings you could/would consider as "skyscrapers" in comparative cities. In New Your the calculation is 13'-14' per floor of a building.

On the number of feet per floor of a building, it varies. For hotel type buildings with no spire or tower and a flat roof, it can go as low as 10's per floor, 8' high celings and 2' between floors. In Honolulu they seem to have a 400' height limit and they have dozens of hotels which are 40 floors and 400'.

If you have a tower or a spire, like most of the older skyscrapers and some of the new ones, you probably run 12' to 14' per floor.


Chicago is on record as the city that put up the first (TRUE) skyscraper . . . . but they in no way have a greater number than NYC.

No one says that they have a greater number than NYC. What is said is that they have more buildings over 400 meters tall than NYC AT THIS TIME. NYC had their only two destoyed, The current highest building, the Empire State Building, is 380 meters.
The new Freedom Tower will be 402 meters in its hard structure so NYC will then have one but Chicago has two in that category. In all other categories, NYC has more.

There is a current argument on the new Freedom Tower that replaces the 9/11 killed WTC twin towers on/of what to include in the overall height . . . things like: is the telecommunications tower atop it enclosed--by what and how, and should it be included anyway in its height. Other structures do . . . . there is a recent article in the NY Times on this . . . the tower will add 200+ feet at the top . . . currently, the hard structure of the actual building is 1320+ feet up.

But I say all this in the context that in terms of "skyscraper numbers in any one city." Take a walk down mid-town Manhattan. 6th Av is lined with 40+ story buildings . . . mid-town Manhattan is full of them . . . . and down town in the "financial district" of Manhattan: good God, you've got to see the current skyline.

No one is challenging the fact that NYC is the densest concentration of skyscrapers in the world. Wikepedia has a list of the tallest for every major city in the world. NYC has the most and Chicago is second with about 52% as many.

And that does not include Brooklyn that is also part of NYC.

Roger, I provided a link to read but you obviously did click on it. All the data I cited is correct. We really don't have any disagreements

I agree that the article is confusing when it cites 11 stories as a skyscraper. I am just guessing that was the height of the tallest building in Shanghai before their modern building boom started. However, they give an extensive list of every skyscraper in Shanghai. They show 3 categories of buildings - Completed buildings, buildings under construction and buildings approved for construction but not started yet.

In the completed buildings section, I have copied the first 41 buildings. The building in 41st place is 663' tall with 42 stories. I looked up NYC and it's 52nd tallest building is 664' while in Chicago it'2 27th tallest building is 668'. NYC is therefore has the greatest density. If you call NYC 100 in terms of density then Shanghai would be 80% as dense and Chicago would 52% as dense. I had no idea that Shanghai was that dense. At 80% it is much closer to NYC than Chicago.

Rank Name Height
m / ft Floors Year Notes
1 Shanghai World Financial Center 492 / 1,614 101 2008 Tallest building in China, and contains the highest observation deck in the world[8][11]
— Oriental Pearl Tower 468 / 1,535 14 1994 Observation tower and communications antenna[12][13]
2 Jin Mao Tower 421 / 1,380 88 1998 Tallest building completed in the 1990s[14][15]
3 Shimao International Plaza 333 / 1,093 60 2005 [16][17]
5 Plaza 66 288 / 945 66 2001 [19][20]
6 Tomorrow Square 285 / 934 55 2003 [21][22]
7 Hong Kong New World Tower 278 / 913 61 2002 [23][24]
4 Shanghai Wheelock Square 297 / 974.5 58 2010 [18]
8 One Lujiazui 269 / 869 53 2008 [25][26][27]
9 Bocom Financial Towers 265 / 869 52 2002 [28][29]
10= Grand Gateway Shanghai I 262 / 860 52 2005 [30][31]
10= Grand Gateway Shanghai II 262 / 860 52 2005 [32][33]
12 Shanghai IFC North Tower 260 / 853 56 2010 Also known as Shanghai International Financial Center 1[34][35]
13 Huamin King Tower 258 / 846 63 2011 [36]
14 Bank of Shanghai Headquarters 252 / 827 46 2005 [37][38]
15 IFC South Tower 250 / 820 58 2009 [39]
16 Maxdo Centre 241 / 792 55 2002 [4

17 Cloud Nine 238 / 781 58 2006 Also known as Shanghai Summit Shopping City[42][43]
18 International Ocean Shipping Building 232 / 763 50 2000 [44][45]
19 Plaza 66 Tower 2 228 / 749 45 2006 [46][47]
20= Oasis Skyway Garden Hotel 226 / 742 52 2007 [48][49]
20= Bank of China Tower 226 / 741 53 2000 [50][51]
22 Raffles Square 222 / 728 49 2003 [52][53]
23= Zhongrong Jasper Tower 220/722 48 2008 [54]
23= BM Plaza 220 / 722 50 2009 [55]
25= CITIC Pacific HQ 219 / 887 49 2010 [56]
25= Mandarin Oriental 219 / 887 49 2010 [57]
27 Changfeng Hotel 218 / 715 53 2005 Also known as the Regent Shanghai[58][59]
28 Shanghai Dong Hai Plaza 217 / 712 52 2004 [60][61]
29= World Finance Tower 212 / 696 43 2000 [62][63]
29= King Tower 212 / 696 38 1996 [64][65]
31 Pudong International Information Port 211 / 692 40 2001 [66][67]
32 21st Century Mansion 210 / 689 49 2009 [68]
33 Sofitel Jin Jiang Oriental Pudong Hotel 207 / 679 47 2002 [69][70]
34 Golden Bell Mansion 208 / 682 42 1998 [71][72]
35 Golden Landmark 206 / 676 41 2008 [73]
36 Nan Zheng Building 205 / 673 49 1998 [74][75]
37 Lippo Plaza 204 / 669 38 1998 [76][77]
38 Shanghai Sen Mao International Building 203 / 667 46 1998 [78][79]
39= Huaxia Financial Square Tower A 202 / 663 42 2003 Also known as Xinyuan Square A[80][81]
39= Huaxia Financial Square Tower B 202 / 663 42 2005 Also known as Xinyuan Square B[82][83]
41= Radisson Hotel Shanghai New World 200 / 6

To read this, you have the rank of the building, it's name, its height in meters, then in feet and its number of stories.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey,

Think it through . . . the strategy you cite above is the route to USA joining the banana republic class.

The colossal loss of value of the $$ will result in it having to buy foreign currency to import what it needs.

What is in the works is the loss of the USA position as the exclusive currency of international trade settlement and the marker of "foreign currency reserves."

Why does our current administration seem to want this to occur? How do they gain?

The US is headed to being just another country having to buy what it imports with a "currency" that is acceptable to the producer of the goods being purchased.

Think what that means to US hegemony!!!!

Why does our current administration seem to be in favor of this? What are they after, what is the end game?

R

I know its crazy but we are talking about the Obama administration and the billionaires on the far left fringe who are financing him! Those things don't represent what I feel but represent my wild guess as to what they are up to. I really don't know much about this type of politics. I know my opinions on what they might be up to sound far fetched but trying to figure out a mindset so alien to your own, one almost expects to arrive at far out and crazy modes of behavior.

I asked Terril the questions of Who and Why. Who would want or benefit from a period of intense inflation in the USA. Why are they pushing for this. I am trying to see who stands to benefit if this happens.

I look at President Obama and it is pretty easy to see that he is working so as to eliminate the exceptionalism which the USA has enjoyed in the past. He may well feel that it is "unfair" for the USA to be a dominant super power.

The thing is that he has no worries about our debt increasing out the top of the charts, he has no interest in moving bills through Congress, he has no interest in balancing the budget or even having a budget. There is one thing he has an intense interest in and that is in raising the debt ceiling every time the US National debt approaches it's limit. Every time that happens he is all over the place trying to get the ceiling raised. Two other times he showed intense interest in the economy. The first was when he pushed through his 800 billion dollar stimulus bill when he was first elected and the second was when he was pushing through Obama Care.

Other than on those three items, he has shown almost no leadership on the economy. In the area of defense, he made a deal with the Russians to take down the missile shield we had agreed to provide in Eastern Europe in cooperation with the Czechs and the Poles. He got nothing in return from the Russians and did not bother to consult with the Poles or Czechs. I am just trying to figure out what his true motivations are.

I think that he wants to achieve the scenario which you describe above.

Help me out, I just don't get it.
Lakey

 

[Lone Star]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I know its crazy but we are talking about the Obama administration and the billionaires on the far left fringe who are financing him! Those things don't represent what I feel but represent my wild guess as to what they are up to. I really don't know much about this type of politics. I know my opinions on what they might be up to sound far fetched but trying to figure out a mindset so alien to your own, one almost expects to arrive at far out and crazy modes of behavior.

I asked Terril the questions of Who and Why. Who would want or benefit from a period of intense inflation in the USA. Why are they pushing for this. I am trying to see who stands to benefit if this happens.

I look at President Obama and it is pretty easy to see that he is working so as to eliminate the exceptionalism which the USA has enjoyed in the past. He may well feel that it is "unfair" for the USA to be a dominant super power.

The thing is that he has no worries about our debt increasing out the top of the charts, he has no interest in moving bills through Congress, he has no interest in balancing the budget or even having a budget. There is one thing he has an intense interest in and that is in raising the debt ceiling every time the US National debt approaches it's limit. Every time that happens he is all over the place trying to get the ceiling raised. Two other times he showed intense interest in the economy. The first was when he pushed through his 800 billion dollar stimulus bill when he was first elected and the second was when he was pushing through Obama Care.

Other than on those three items, he has shown almost no leadership on the economy. In the area of defense, he made a deal with the Russians to take down the missile shield we had agreed to provide in Eastern Europe in cooperation with the Czechs and the Poles. He got nothing in return from the Russians and did not bother to consult with the Poles or Czechs. I am just trying to figure out what his true motivations are.

I think that he wants to achieve the scenario which you describe above.

Help me out, I just don't get it.
Lakey

All you have to do is understand where he's from, ideologically speaking. All of his past mentors and true friends, comrades if you will, were committed Marxists. I know that he hasn't been a hardcore Marxist as President. That's because he couldn't get away with a radical agenda up front. Marxists are incrementalists. The Obamacare legislation is actually Fascist if one wants to get technical. It's mostly an older Republican construct. (Romneycare anyone?).

I don't discuss politics much on ESMB because it just depresses me, plus it divides people. In a nutshell, we're fucked. On the surface we have a choice between the Democrats and Republicans, but actually our choice is between Marxists and Fascists. Although some Democrats are remarkably fascistic themselves anymore. Of course there are individual exceptions in both parties. But overall I think each party is corrupt and loves to use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

All you have to do is understand where he's from, ideologically speaking. All of his past mentors and true friends, comrades if you will, were committed Marxists. I know that he hasn't been a hardcore Marxist as President. That's because he couldn't get away with a radical agenda up front. Marxists are incrementalists. The Obamacare legislation is actually Fascist if one wants to get technical. It's mostly an older Republican construct. (Romneycare anyone?).

I don't discuss politics much on ESMB because it just depresses me, plus it divides people. In a nutshell, we're fucked. On the surface we have a choice between the Democrats and Republicans, but actually our choice is between Marxists and Fascists. Although some Democrats are remarkably fascistic themselves anymore. Of course there are individual exceptions in both parties. But overall I think each party is corrupt and loves to use the Bill of Rights as toilet paper.

I believe that you are new here. If so, welcome aboard. I pretty much believe exactly in what you say in your first paragraph and you state it well. Your term incrementalist is useful to explain how the Obama administration is proceeding. If Obama gets reelected he should expose much more of his true agenda in his second term simply because he no longer has to worry about reelection. I wouldn't put it past him to try and eliminate the two term limit so that he can stay in office longer.

Whatever their similarities, the Democrats detest the Republicans. Choosing between Marxists and Fascists, the Marxists are more covert and harder to read. Faxcists are more direct. They are angry but they say more what is on their mind.

One thing that still puzzels me. Traditionally, Marxists and Fascists have wanted their countries to rise to the top so that their system would spread and become universally used throughout the world.
Obama's version of Marxism is a little different. He believes the USA is too rich and two powerful. He wants to weaken the power and wealth of the USA. This is quite out of character for the Marxist type of leadership. Also, Obama's brand of government encourages world government at the expense of patriotism whereas traditional Marxism and Facisim, especially Facism, both stressed strong and powerful nations spearheading the growth of their movement.

They are inconsistencies which just don't add up.
Lakey

 

[Lone Star]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I believe that you are new here. If so, welcome aboard. I pretty much believe exactly in what you say in your first paragraph and you state it well. Your term incrementalist is useful to explain how the Obama administration is proceeding. If Obama gets reelected he should expose much more of his true agenda in his second term simply because he no longer has to worry about reelection. I wouldn't put it past him to try and eliminate the two term limit so that he can stay in office longer.

Whatever their similarities, the Democrats detest the Republicans. Choosing between Marxists and Fascists, the Marxists are more covert and harder to read. Faxcists are more direct. They are angry but they say more what is on their mind.

One thing that still puzzels me. Traditionally, Marxists and Fascists have wanted their countries to rise to the top so that their system would spread and become universally used throughout the world.
Obama's version of Marxism is a little different. He believes the USA is too rich and two powerful. He wants to weaken the power and wealth of the USA. This is quite out of character for the Marxist type of leadership. Also, Obama's brand of government encourages world government at the expense of patriotism whereas traditional Marxism and Facisim, especially Facism, both stressed strong and powerful nations spearheading the growth of their movement.

They are inconsistencies which just don't add up.
Lakey

I think both Marxism and Fascism have evolved and are still evolving. Neither are as committed to nationalism anymore, although you'll still find some die hard nationalists around. What we have now is a growing global corporate fascism where these giant transnational corporations, and banks of course, have even more power than governments. But the governments cooperate with them. It's a quid pro quo arrangement. Which is fascism. A lot of people don't know that fascism is a type of socialism, it's just not of the Marxist or Bolshevik bent. It's power to the Corporations instead of Labor, for one thing.

In reality China is more of a Fascist state now, even though the official Communist Party still runs it. It's all bad, no matter what it's called.

As far as not "adding up"....We live in the age of Cognitive Dissonance. IMO anyway.

I'm relatively new. I'm a three month member now, oooops, make that almost four now. Damn time flies!

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I think both Marxism and Fascism have evolved and are still evolving. Neither are as committed to nationalism anymore, although you'll still find some die hard nationalists around. What we have now is a growing global corporate fascism where these giant transnational corporations, and banks of course, have even more power than governments. But the governments cooperate with them. It's a quid pro quo arrangement. Which is fascism. A lot of people don't know that fascism is a type of socialism, it's just not of the Marxist or Bolshevik bent. It's power to the Corporations instead of Labor, for one thing.

In reality China is more of a Fascist state now, even though the official Communist Party still runs it. It's all bad, no matter what it's called.

As far as not "adding up"....We live in the age of Cognitive Dissonance. IMO anyway.

I'm relatively new. I'm a three month member now, oooops, make that almost four now. Damn time flies!

Thanks for the update on the terms Fascist and Marxist. When did these changes take place? Fascism, in the traditional sense, seemed to end with the end of WWII. As to Marxism, wasn't the Soviet Union a nation that was seeking expansion and world domination all the way up to its final days?

What about traditional Americanism as embodied in the US Constitution? What is the status of that movement? It seems to have lost most of its punch here in the US. Many people in the US still pay lip service to it and a large number are still willing to fight for it but most of our leadership is not actually supporting it anymore. 4 more years of Obama and it will probably be totally gone.

You take someone such as the second Bush. He gave the appearance of being a strict Constitutionalist and Conservative and yet, perhaps more than anyone else in U.S. history, he took the U.S. in a totally different direction from that which he campaigned on to the public.
Lakey

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I think both Marxism and Fascism have evolved and are still evolving. Neither are as committed to nationalism anymore, although you'll still find some die hard nationalists around. What we have now is a growing global corporate fascism where these giant transnational corporations, and banks of course, have even more power than governments. But the governments cooperate with them. It's a quid pro quo arrangement. Which is fascism. A lot of people don't know that fascism is a type of socialism, it's just not of the Marxist or Bolshevik bent. It's power to the Corporations instead of Labor, for one thing.

where on earth did you get this from?

Fascism is the act of bringing the various powers of the state under the control of a single entity. It is derived, by Mussolini who was the "source" (lol), from the ancient Roman concept of the "fasces" - the rods of authority bound together in a solid unit.

It has NOTHING to do with corporations.

It is about statist control.

Marxism is about the industrial proletariat BECOMING the power of the state. they are different incarnations of the same damned thing. Communism is a dictatorship of the industrial proletariat which is supposed to lead, via the mechanism of dialectical materialism - to the classless society. Socialism , according to Lenin, is an acceptable way station on the way to full Communism.

In reality China is more of a Fascist state now, even though the official Communist Party still runs it. It's all bad, no matter what it's called.

it is a totalitarian dictatorship. Communist, fascist, falangist, absolute monarchies are ALL totalitarian dictatorships.

As far as not "adding up"....We live in the age of Cognitive Dissonance. IMO anyway.

I'm relatively new. I'm a three month member now, oooops, make that almost four now. Damn time flies!

good point on the CD

 

[Lone Star]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

where on earth did you get this from?

Fascism is the act of bringing the various powers of the state under the control of a single entity. It is derived, by Mussolini who was the "source" (lol), from the ancient Roman concept of the "fasces" - the rods of authority bound together in a solid unit.

It has NOTHING to do with corporations.

It is about statist control.

Marxism is about the industrial proletariat BECOMING the power of the state. they are different incarnations of the same damned thing. Communism is a dictatorship of the industrial proletariat which is supposed to lead, via the mechanism of dialectical materialism - to the classless society. Socialism , according to Lenin, is an acceptable way station on the way to full Communism.



it is a totalitarian dictatorship. Communist, fascist, falangist, absolute monarchies are ALL totalitarian dictatorships.



good point on the CD

Yes you're right about fascism. I meant to say "corporatism". A lot of people these days use the term "corporate fascism" and sometimes without thinking I parrot that phrase, or just say "fascism". People on the left of course often misuse the word fascism, and I think I just made the same mistake.

Today it seems that very large corporations get powerful enough to control governments, rather than the opposite. So fascism is not the appropriate term by definition, which I just looked up in an older, more reliable dictionary. I think corporatism is correct.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

where on earth did you get this from?

Fascism is the act of bringing the various powers of the state under the control of a single entity. It is derived, by Mussolini who was the "source" (lol), from the ancient Roman concept of the "fasces" - the rods of authority bound together in a solid unit.

It has NOTHING to do with corporations.

It is about statist control.

Marxism is about the industrial proletariat BECOMING the power of the state. they are different incarnations of the same damned thing. Communism is a dictatorship of the industrial proletariat which is supposed to lead, via the mechanism of dialectical materialism - to the classless society. Socialism , according to Lenin, is an acceptable way station on the way to full Communism.



it is a totalitarian dictatorship. Communist, fascist, falangist, absolute monarchies are ALL totalitarian dictatorships.



good point on the CD

Thanks Mick for contributing to this and clearing it up.
Lakey

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

So.....will the coming mandate that U.S citizens engage in commerce with corporate entities to buy itheir nsurance be fascism, socialism, bankster-ism, or gangster-ism?

And remember..... it was Barzini all along.

I think Lakey is right. We have no intention of paying off the nation's debt under fair market terms. Obama and his backers have some cards they're not showing.

 

[Antony A Phillips]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I found Antony on video!! But it's not in English.
[[video snipped]]

In the left sidebar is a wealth of first hand accounts relating to Ant's post.
http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/

Sorry about that. I speak, rather boringly (or perhaps you could say indelicately) on my home page http://www.antology.info/ , you find it at http://www.antology.info/mp3_video.php .

But at the moment I am being a relay point, bringing some of the perhaps forgotten things The Pilot wrote in his hey day at the beginning of the Internet era. An era which helped reveal the growing evilness of the "Church".

All best wishes,

Ant

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

You speak with a British accent in the audio!

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Roger, I provided a link to read but you obviously did click on it. All the data I cited is correct. We really don't have any disagreements

I agree that the article is confusing when it cites 11 stories as a skyscraper. I am just guessing that was the height of the tallest building in Shanghai before their modern building boom started. However, they give an extensive list of every skyscraper in Shanghai. They show 3 categories of buildings - Completed buildings, buildings under construction and buildings approved for construction but not started yet.

In the completed buildings section, I have copied the first 41 buildings. The building in 41st place is 663' tall with 42 stories. I looked up NYC and it's 52nd tallest building is 664' while in Chicago it'2 27th tallest building is 668'. NYC is therefore has the greatest density. If you call NYC 100 in terms of density then Shanghai would be 80% as dense and Chicago would 52% as dense. I had no idea that Shanghai was that dense. At 80% it is much closer to NYC than Chicago.

Rank Name Height
m / ft Floors Year Notes
1 Shanghai World Financial Center 492 / 1,614 101 2008 Tallest building in China, and contains the highest observation deck in the world[8][11]
— Oriental Pearl Tower 468 / 1,535 14 1994 Observation tower and communications antenna[12][13]
2 Jin Mao Tower 421 / 1,380 88 1998 Tallest building completed in the 1990s[14][15]
3 Shimao International Plaza 333 / 1,093 60 2005 [16][17]
5 Plaza 66 288 / 945 66 2001 [19][20]
6 Tomorrow Square 285 / 934 55 2003 [21][22]
7 Hong Kong New World Tower 278 / 913 61 2002 [23][24]
4 Shanghai Wheelock Square 297 / 974.5 58 2010 [18]
8 One Lujiazui 269 / 869 53 2008 [25][26][27]
9 Bocom Financial Towers 265 / 869 52 2002 [28][29]
10= Grand Gateway Shanghai I 262 / 860 52 2005 [30][31]
10= Grand Gateway Shanghai II 262 / 860 52 2005 [32][33]
12 Shanghai IFC North Tower 260 / 853 56 2010 Also known as Shanghai International Financial Center 1[34][35]
13 Huamin King Tower 258 / 846 63 2011 [36]
14 Bank of Shanghai Headquarters 252 / 827 46 2005 [37][38]
15 IFC South Tower 250 / 820 58 2009 [39]
16 Maxdo Centre 241 / 792 55 2002 [4

17 Cloud Nine 238 / 781 58 2006 Also known as Shanghai Summit Shopping City[42][43]
18 International Ocean Shipping Building 232 / 763 50 2000 [44][45]
19 Plaza 66 Tower 2 228 / 749 45 2006 [46][47]
20= Oasis Skyway Garden Hotel 226 / 742 52 2007 [48][49]
20= Bank of China Tower 226 / 741 53 2000 [50][51]
22 Raffles Square 222 / 728 49 2003 [52][53]
23= Zhongrong Jasper Tower 220/722 48 2008 [54]
23= BM Plaza 220 / 722 50 2009 [55]
25= CITIC Pacific HQ 219 / 887 49 2010 [56]
25= Mandarin Oriental 219 / 887 49 2010 [57]
27 Changfeng Hotel 218 / 715 53 2005 Also known as the Regent Shanghai[58][59]
28 Shanghai Dong Hai Plaza 217 / 712 52 2004 [60][61]
29= World Finance Tower 212 / 696 43 2000 [62][63]
29= King Tower 212 / 696 38 1996 [64][65]
31 Pudong International Information Port 211 / 692 40 2001 [66][67]
32 21st Century Mansion 210 / 689 49 2009 [68]
33 Sofitel Jin Jiang Oriental Pudong Hotel 207 / 679 47 2002 [69][70]
34 Golden Bell Mansion 208 / 682 42 1998 [71][72]
35 Golden Landmark 206 / 676 41 2008 [73]
36 Nan Zheng Building 205 / 673 49 1998 [74][75]
37 Lippo Plaza 204 / 669 38 1998 [76][77]
38 Shanghai Sen Mao International Building 203 / 667 46 1998 [78][79]
39= Huaxia Financial Square Tower A 202 / 663 42 2003 Also known as Xinyuan Square A[80][81]
39= Huaxia Financial Square Tower B 202 / 663 42 2005 Also known as Xinyuan Square B[82][83]
41= Radisson Hotel Shanghai New World 200 / 6

To read this, you have the rank of the building, it's name, its height in meters, then in feet and its number of stories.
Lakey

All I've been trying to point out, mate, they got their facts wrong in saying Chicago has a greater number of "skyscrapers" than NYC . . . . you eventually ended up citing that fact

NYC long ago lost its "highest building" status.

Within 5-10 years the Chinese will have the mostest and biggest . . . and by then the $$ will relative scrap paper compared to its current status.

Rog

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Originally Posted by RogerB
Lakey,

Think it through . . . the strategy you cite above is the route to USA joining the banana republic class.

The colossal loss of value of the $$ will result in it having to buy foreign currency to import what it needs.

What is in the works is the loss of the USA position as the exclusive currency of international trade settlement and the marker of "foreign currency reserves."

Why does our current administration seem to want this to occur? How do they gain?

The US is headed to being just another country having to buy what it imports with a "currency" that is acceptable to the producer of the goods being purchased.

Think what that means to US hegemony!!!!

Why does our current administration seem to be in favor of this? What are they after, what is the end game?

R

I know its crazy but we are talking about the Obama administration and the billionaires on the far left fringe who are financing him! Those things don't represent what I feel but represent my wild guess as to what they are up to. I really don't know much about this type of politics. I know my opinions on what they might be up to sound far fetched but trying to figure out a mindset so alien to your own, one almost expects to arrive at far out and crazy modes of behavior.

I asked Terril the questions of Who and Why. Who would want or benefit from a period of intense inflation in the USA. Why are they pushing for this. I am trying to see who stands to benefit if this happens.

I look at President Obama and it is pretty easy to see that he is working so as to eliminate the exceptionalism which the USA has enjoyed in the past. He may well feel that it is "unfair" for the USA to be a dominant super power.

The thing is that he has no worries about our debt increasing out the top of the charts, he has no interest in moving bills through Congress, he has no interest in balancing the budget or even having a budget. There is one thing he has an intense interest in and that is in raising the debt ceiling every time the US National debt approaches it's limit. Every time that happens he is all over the place trying to get the ceiling raised. Two other times he showed intense interest in the economy. The first was when he pushed through his 800 billion dollar stimulus bill when he was first elected and the second was when he was pushing through Obama Care.

Other than on those three items, he has shown almost no leadership on the economy. In the area of defense, he made a deal with the Russians to take down the missile shield we had agreed to provide in Eastern Europe in cooperation with the Czechs and the Poles. He got nothing in return from the Russians and did not bother to consult with the Poles or Czechs. I am just trying to figure out what his true motivations are.

I think that he wants to achieve the scenario which you describe above.

Help me out, I just don't get it.
Lakey

Yours above in red asking specific points within my original . . .

You appear to be assuming they (the current administration) want the outcome cited.

That would be an incorrect assumption.

What is going on is that the governments of the west have been following stupid Keynesian economic think at the behest of the bankers who benefit from it.

In actuality, the government types in the west didn't have a clue where this is really leading . . . they are now out of control and and reacting to enormous problems with continued wrong answer solutions.

The US and its UK/Euro allies are being out-maneuvered by Russia and the "Asians." That's why the west's gold is gushing over to the "east."

In actuality, the big secret is that there is a world war going on . . . but the ammunition is not bullets but money and finance. And the "west" is being beaten at every turn.

You will the European Monetary Union in its current state break up. And you'll see Germany along with a few financially healthy countries to the north go separate from the Mediterranean loafers. And you'll see Germany align itself with Russia and China.

Part of this set up has just been put in place with the agreement on building a trans-Asia railroad from China to Europe . . . the final step being the trans-Turkey link that connects the rail head in from China to the European network.

So, the "Obama admin" isn't wanting what's happening: it's happening to they.

The only silly thing they are knowingly doing is producing more debt.

GOTTA go . . . Virginia needs me again.

The above not proof read

R

 

[Lone Star]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

So.....will the coming mandate that U.S citizens engage in commerce with corporate entities to buy their insurance be fascism, socialism, bankster-ism, or gangster-ism?

IMO it's fascism because the insurance is allowed to be privately, or non-government owned but with stringent government regulation and control. Obama's ultimate goal may be socialism, but whether it is or not, it ain't gonna be good. Hopefully the Supreme Court will shoot it down this month.

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Terril, you and Roger make intelligent posts on these worldwide monetary difficulties while others add jibberish.

You two make this thread have some interest !

Toady,

Since you are interested in this subject, paddle on over to the "Wall Street Protests - Brooklyn Bridge Closed - hundreds arrested, Unions joining" started by Arnie. I've put a lot of developing info on this subject there . . . all part of why Wall Street needs to occupied . . . throw out the bums and put in some honesty.

Last Wednesday I was on a course down Wall Street (actually in Broadway near the corner of Wall---but it's all considered "Wall Street" down there, particularly Broad St in which that famous edifice of columns of the NY Stock Exchange fronts onto -- and where my beloved cigar shop resides.

The course was run by a trader from one of the big market makers on the exchanges. Most folks don't realize that with today's electronic trading and exchanges there are something like more than 6 exchanges you can trade shares on. Nowadays, there are hidden and colossal moves (not against the law) that the boys pull to manipulate the markets.

I won't get into the details here, it will be a too long post for the time I have and the details are complex.

The message is that, while there are now two exchanges on which the companies list their shares in NY (the Amex is closing as it is now owned by the NY Stock Exchange) . . . there are many more upon which one can trade them.

This apart from the smaller exchanges around the country folks don't hear much about . . . Philadelphia (the oldest in the USA), Boston, Arizona, and on . . .

It was an eye-opener to me to learn how the "boyz" who make the markets actually do "make the market" do what they want it to do to their advantage!

Reminds me of my old 007 days and the bullion bank client I had that was in on the daily London "fix" game . . . they fixed the price all right. Indeed, Paul Volcker later famously said they (the boyz including him on behalf of the US government) didn't control the gold price enough . . . they should have done MORE!

Rog

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

All I've been trying to point out, mate, they got their facts wrong in saying Chicago has a greater number of "skyscrapers" than NYC . . . . you eventually ended up citing that fact

NYC long ago lost its "highest building" status.

Within 5-10 years the Chinese will have the mostest and biggest . . . and by then the $$ will relative scrap paper compared to its current status.

Rog

Rog - Thank God this is not a serious topic and that we agree on all points. The article I quoted said that Chicago had the most skyscrapers above 400 meters and Shanghai was second to them. I think that where I misled you is that when I quoted the article I left off the descriptive "400 meters" and put "very tall buildings" in its place. Then the article mentions that more than 1000 skyscrapers over 11 stories have been built. This is also misleading because 11 stories is tiny and is not a skyscraper.

We both agree that NYC has the most skyscrapers and I agree with your last paragraph that someday China will have more and at that time our currency will be relative scrap paper.
I'm willing to leave it at that so if you want to reply further, I will give you the last word. Cheers to being in agreement on all points of this!
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yours above in red asking specific points within my original . . .

You appear to be assuming they (the current administration) want the outcome cited.

That would be an incorrect assumption.

What is going on is that the governments of the west have been following stupid Keynesian economic think at the behest of the bankers who benefit from it.

In actuality, the government types in the west didn't have a clue where this is really leading . . . they are now out of control and and reacting to enormous problems with continued wrong answer solutions.

The US and its UK/Euro allies are being out-maneuvered by Russia and the "Asians." That's why the west's gold is gushing over to the "east."

In actuality, the big secret is that there is a world war going on . . . but the ammunition is not bullets but money and finance. And the "west" is being beaten at every turn.

You will the European Monetary Union in its current state break up. And you'll see Germany along with a few financially healthy countries to the north go separate from the Mediterranean loafers. And you'll see Germany align itself with Russia and China.

Part of this set up has just been put in place with the agreement on building a trans-Asia railroad from China to Europe . . . the final step being the trans-Turkey link that connects the rail head in from China to the European network.

So, the "Obama admin" isn't wanting what's happening: it's happening to they.

The only silly thing they are knowingly doing is producing more debt.

GOTTA go . . . Virginia needs me again.

The above not proof read

R

Thanks for specific replies to my direct questions asking why! I am fishing for answers and your response fills the bill.

One thing is certain, the US is losing ground at every turn. We lost enormous ground under George W.Bush and are losing at an accelerated rate under Obama - who advertised himself as being the anecdote for Bush.

Obama and his UK/Euro allies put a lot of stock in Keynesian economics. There is a Hubbard cassette where he lashes into Keynes and his philosophy with vengeance. Hubbard wasn't wrong about everything and on Keynesian economics I believe that his analysis is accurate. The whole idea is preposterous, taxing the wealthiest citizens, borrowing and printing money with the goal of growing the economy.

Keynesian economics is a theory. It was worthy of being tested. I HAS been tested over and over and always produces the same results - A country lives high off the hog for a few decades, going further and further into debt with a shrinkage in the population of the workers who pay into the system. A situation arises where the receivables coming in are insufficient to meet the payables. Droves of foreign workers are brought in so as to keep the scheme going. The culture of the country is watered down while the debt escalates beyond the country's ability to pay. To stave off going broke, the country taxes even more, prints more paper money and borrows more but very soon these measure are no longer sufficient to keep things running. At this point they need a bailout or they must declare bankruptcy.

Sound familiar? Yet, no matter how many times this happens, the Keynesians such as Obama, are not capable of seeing that Keynesianism doesn't work. They defend it visciously with violent personal attacks for anyone who disagree. Does that sound familiar too? We've got that going on here on ESMB!

It sure makes sense that that the Germans along with the three Scandanavian states and the Netherlands would sever their ties with the EU and form a new economic union in conjunction with Russia and China. The southern EU powers would not be in this new union. What about France? Germany and France seem pretty tight these days and France would probably stay in. Also, the Eastern Euro bloc, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, the Baltics, Rumania et al have strong ties with Russia and may stay in.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

So.....will the coming mandate that U.S citizens engage in commerce with corporate entities to buy itheir nsurance be fascism, socialism, bankster-ism, or gangster-ism?

And remember..... it was Barzini all along.

I think Lakey is right. We have no intention of paying off the nation's debt under fair market terms. Obama and his backers have some cards they're not showing.

Great post Hats! Thanks for the validation above. I would also give Terril some credit, he called that point to my attention a few posts back.

Its amusing in a way to watch Obama operate. Pretty much everything that he says is deception designed to manipulate the voters but occasionally, he will slip and say what he really means, especially if he thinks a microphone is off. If it is still on, then we get to hear some of his true feelings as happened recently in a conference he had with the President of Russia.

Trying to analyze his true motivations is kind of interesting and even fun. When a president only comes to life on the economy when the debt ceiling needs to be raised and could care less about a $16 trillion debt growing at $1.5 trillion a year and could care less about passing a budget something weird is going on. Trying to figure it out, its easy to come up with things which seem insane but then isn't that what you would expect from someone behaving so strangely?
Lakey