I mean, is it so different from a privately-issued credit score? Transunion isn't a government agency but your credit score can keep you from certain jobs and apartments in addition to loans.
They are both scores which are used for a variety of purposes. That's as far as the similarity goes.
The credit bureaus have a tiny slice of information. In reality, they know almost nothing about you besides your debts. They certainly don't know your politics.
Jay walking or speaking out against the government online will probably not affect my credit score.
Not to mention that China has a real problem with bad credit, the technocratic solution is to look at snooping & big data as the fix: a very modern approach.
Also i don't think that the technocrats who are ruling China have much in common with the cultural revolution: for example Deng Xiaoping was purged twice during the cultural revolution (i wonder how he survived the first purge).
Based on what I've read, the South China Sea policies make sense from a certain point of view, that China is the dominant power in the region who can dictate to others without negotiation, and eventually their neighbors must accept that. (That was China's position until the Opium Wars in the mid-19th century demonstrated that China lacked the military power to dictate to or even resist Western nations.) If that is China's long-term plan, then it's the right approach to dictate the status of the South China Sea and view resistance as short-term and ultimately futile. Negotiating would undermine China's standing.
It's a backward point of view: The world and China do much better when we manage conflict via democratic institutions based on rights than by might-makes-right. Who longs for the days of great power wars?
For years their argument against the West was about why we spend so much time and resources trying to push our ideals to others, when we could take a practical path and be more successful economically
Because that creates political friction, leading to conflict, leading to profitable arms sales. So much of the US's cavalier foreign policy is geared toward propping up the MIC between the periodic big wars it takes on for itself. Eisenhower's warning came true and nobody is doing anything about it.
This is a common argument used by those who want to oppress others; here's the flaw in it:
I agree! It is none of my business and that's the whole point of liberty: Individuals should have self-determination; that is, freedom. Their choices and interests are none of my business, and they are none of their oppressors' business either.
If they don't have the self-determination to control their own lives and express their own interests, then often there isn't much they can do to get it; their oppressors hold the power. That's when other people have a responsibility not to close their eyes to oppression but to do something about it. The goal is not to tell the oppressed what to do, but to give them the freedom to decide and act for themselves.
I know I have my self-determination and freedom because of the efforts and sacrifices generations of others have made for me; millions have paid with their lives and their fortunes; more gave up careers, went to jail, suffered ostracism, torture and worse; generations made it their jobs to make laws, creating institutions and more to ensure I have my freedom today. Is my response that it is none of their business? Or do I have a share of the work to do?
That's certainly true of some people, but note all the people throughout history (e.g., in my prior comment) who have made great sacrifices for it. If nobody was willing to sacrifice, there would be no freedom or democracy today.
It's simply a matter of affordability, the West can afford to care about human rights, refugees, giving foreign aid because it can and it believes that it's not a question of politics but an evolution of thinking that emerged as a result of 200+ years of world wide colonialism.
It's interesting to see that the East has been unable to take the same route but it's slowly changing in developed democracies like Japan and South Korea.
My fear is that it works all too well, especially in Chinese society.
Giving people brownie points for "being nice" or "not shitting in the streets" seems like a different ball game.
And IMO they should stop using it outside that context. People shouldn't have to worry about whether they can find a job or apartment based on having poor credit. Turns it into a game that everyone is forced to play instead of a simple metric that financial institutions can use to determine your credit-worthiness.
I've never had bad credit, but when I started working office jobs I actually went out and got a credit card I didn't need just so I could use it a few times and pay it off in full at the end of each month. Completely worthless process that I had to involve myself in simply to build my credit up. What a joke.
Where I can see it failing is for people who live "outside" the system - I have a friend who refuses to uses banks and deals only in cash and ancient coins - he can't find an above-the-board place to live because of his lack of credit score. But with that said, he does have a high risk of not being able to make rent on time, so its difficult to say what the policy should be.
As for finding a job, I don't know of any instance where a poor credit score would prevent you from getting a job, other than getting a security clearance, but that also seems reasonable since the government wants to know if you have any blackmail-able "money troubles" that an enemy actor can take advantage of.
That's the point. They designed the system of incentives and constraints to make you their customer.
But your second point is largely what I was getting at. People who don't want that to be a part of their life are starting to run into barriers to leading a normal life. At this point credit scores are used rather casually and don't have that high of consequences. But the trend is in the wrong direction, and I'm firmly against it continuing in the same way as the Chinese are bringing it.
I don't need a credit score to tell me I probably don't want this person as a tenant. They're a huge eviction risk (no system = no fallback for short-term cashflow issues), not to mention that I don't want to be dealing with hundreds of dollars in cash rent.
As an employer I would view it as a red flag, not disqualifiying but it would take some other evidence and good references to offset it.
I'm gonna be that guy: [citation needed]
Seems to come up a lot when reminders of China being ruled by a totalitarian regime come along
Yes, the US is not as bad as China as a place to live (look at the migration flow between them for simple proof), but it's worth noting that the same way people explain away the US's flaws can be done in other countries as well.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/07/08/us-police-shoo...
And you say riots and police being hunted? There is violent unrest in China, too. In both the US and China, the middle-class and the folks in power just hand-wave away the concerns of the victimised demographics, finding excuses for the state's poor treatment of them.
As many people are mocking and blocking #blacklivesmatter as are supporting it. What are those in power actually doing in response to the upset demographics in the US? Hot air. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Nothing with any real bite. Hence, blase.
The 'third strike' should, irrespective, mark you as a dangerous member of society, though depending on circumstances some stronger treatment might result in a different outcome.
I'm scared to think of what your utopia looks like.
At most, a few credit ratings company made this decision and "society" tolerates it for convenience. An equally workable system would be to to default to a high score and deduct points for bad behavior, but this would be bad for business as it wouldn't force people to get credit they don't need.
One of my credit cards gives me monthly updates on my credit score. It always lists 3 positive and 3 negative factors impacting my score, no matter how good the score.
Currently one of the 3 negatives is "highest credit card limit too low". Not debt:available. Just straight up "too low a credit limit on your highest-limit card". And yet, I could buy an entry level luxury car on several of my credit cards.
I'm not implying that a silly ding on my credit like that is as 'serious' as delinquent payments, but... well, the truth is, I have no idea. And isn't that the point?
> any port it chooses to refuel in
Do we have a lot of ports to refuel nuclear powered aircraft carriers?
However, like the other comment suggested, nuclear carriers rarely travel alone without the protection of large naval assets deployed around it.
If only AI was running all of the naval air assets on a carrier, no food, self sustaining & maintaining.
I'd imagine an increase of frequency in US naval carrier groups patrolling oceans closer as a result of the cost savings of reducing manned staff with AI and robots but that's another topic.
Then again this is China, people have no way of speaking out against their government without risking their lives, and the government has no obligation other than maintaining their power over the population.
I almost feel as if Xi is losing his grip on the population by introducing drastic internal policies like this that only names goals that appear to benefit the greater good but almost certainly driving his own agenda, even if it earns the ire of his surrounding peers.
A foreign policy analysis of Xi's external facing policies are almost certainly always to further his internal grip which explains the bizarre & seemingly counter-productive positions he took against North Korea and South China Sea, that further drove neighbouring countries to America's arms....but with strange turn of events it seems that they will be undone from Trump's camp, much to the delight of Putin & Xi.
Time will tell, but it's doubtful we will have anything but a government mouthpiece statician announcing the success of such policies.
It's tough to know the real truth in societies where it is actively suppressed and manipulated by a single central entity. It's also difficult to say how long such systems will last without continuously taking on more risky and expensive internal policies that lags behind changing technology that disseminates information.
but what's that saying? The person wielding the biggest stick in the room is the source of truth implying force is always the lowest common denominator in human societies. Afterall, America wouldn't be where it is today without its 14 nuclear powered floating airports with the most advanced weapon technologies that casts a shadow on any port it chooses to refuel in.