Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 199

Thread: China's mass surveillance state

  1. #46
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    You're here on WAB to talk about me and DOR? Post rebuttals of any argument you think is not quite correct, and we can go on from here as long as your argument relies on the thread topic.
    Been there.
    Done that.
    Didn't match your preconceived notions, so I got ignored.
    Case closed.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  2. #47
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Aug 18
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    There is a reason that the claims that China was about to collapse, in 1981-82, or 1986-88, or 1997-98, or 2007-08, or 2016-17 were dead wrong. Let me know when you've begun to understand the country's history, and we can carry on the discussion.
    Well how about you let me know when you understand the country's reality, and we can carry on that discussion. You are so blinded by the past you cannot recognise that the situation China face today is unprecedented... they've never been in this much debt before....ever.

  3. #48
    Patron
    Join Date
    07 Jan 08
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Been there.
    Done that.
    Didn't match your preconceived notions, so I got ignored.
    Case closed.
    I was referring to Oracle challenging you to name another Asian country that adopted similar economic policies to the current Chinese ones. You never did oblige him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquila View Post
    Well how about you let me know when you understand the country's reality, and we can carry on that discussion. You are so blinded by the past you cannot recognise that the situation China face today is unprecedented... they've never been in this much debt before....ever.
    You realise the current financial year is only 2 years out from the last in DOR's list right? What unprecedented event has occurred in these 2 years?

  4. #49
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,064
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Been there.
    Done that.
    Didn't match your preconceived notions, so I got ignored.
    Case closed.
    Did I quote your post or said anything remotely significant that you jumped in quoting my post? It was your fanboi that quoted me and brought you in. And, I did try to ignore you, but I found out from a member of the staff that ignoring you would mean you could still see my posts, while I could not. So I left the button as it is. So no, it was not my preconceived notions, rather the fact is it is your preconceived notions and love for an authoritarian regime, because of which you and your posts fail to justify critics. And that is everytime. When you are called out, you hide, then come out and started pleading for respect saying you're an economist. You do not post direct answers, and instead troll, which makes me think you're on foreign payroll. You should be on the FBI's watch-list, if not already and I hope the many snooping applications they use, picks this up. You are an obnoxious troll, constantly nosing around whenever anyone posts anything remotely critical of China, and try to justify that. And I am not the first one to call you out in this very board, many did. Oh!, and this habit of yours, coming in and posting crap, making snide remarks, hijacking threads is exactly how the 50 cent army is tasked to behave online. Economist my arse.
    Last edited by Oracle; 28 Aug 18, at 16:11.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  5. #50
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,064
    Back to the topic again.

    No escape: The fearful life of China's exiled dissidents

    When Chinese dissident Sheng Xue fled to Canada, she thought she had finally escaped the watchful eye of Chinese authorities.

    But late one winter's night, a car pulled up outside her Toronto home.

    It marked the beginning of many such clandestine visits by people she believes to be Chinese agents.

    Xue, who was granted asylum in Canada, says they contacted her repeatedly, warning they were tracking her every move and threatening to kill her if she continued to criticise China's leaders.

    "I thought that I escaped from the fear," says Xue. "I was going to enjoy freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. But I realised that they are here, their people, their network, their power, and everything is here."

    Chinese authorities have long been accused of silencing their critics at home but now it seems their threatening methods of censorship and surveillance are extending to activists who have fled to the supposed safety of foreign soil.

    In this exclusive investigation, 101 East reveals that China is taking extreme measures to silence anyone who speaks out against its government.

    Interviews with more than 20 activists and journalists in countries like the US, Canada and Australia, paint a disturbing picture of how China uses intimidation and harassment to control overseas dissent.

    Some say they have received death threats and been confronted by Chinese agents in their new countries. Others say they have been victims of blackmail and intimidation.

    "Chinese authorities took photos of my son while he was on his way to school," says Wen Yunchao, a well-known Chinese blogger who moved his family to New York. "They just wanted to let me know that at any time they can harm my child ... forcing me to do what they want."

    'Kidnapped by the Chinese secret police'
    Activists say criticising Chinese leaders or supporting groups perceived as threats to the nation, such as Falun Gong, Tibetans or Uyghurs, can be enough to attract the authorities' attention.

    Teng Biao says he experienced the dangers of speaking out while working as a civil rights lawyer in China. He fled to the US in 2014 after being targeted by Chinese authorities.

    "I was kidnapped by the Chinese secret police. I didn't know where I was detained. And then, I was physically tortured," he says.

    He shows Al Jazeera death threats he says he's received online since moving to the US. He believes they were sent by Chinese agents.

    One reads: "Teng Biao take care of your life because you will be murdered."

    After he left China, Teng said his family was barred from leaving the country so he hatched a risky escape plan to smuggle them out to safety.

    But many dissidents living abroad continue to fear for family members back home.

    In a rare interview with a Chinese government insider, a former high-level diplomat reveals the country's strategy of silencing dissent abroad.

    "If they get involved in any anti-communist group, they would definitely be harmed. It happens," says Chen Yonglin, who defected to Australia in 2005. "Most of the Chinese immigrants are still scared because they know the Chinese regime may go to extreme means."

    World renowned China watcher Jerome Cohen says Chinese President Xi Jinping is driving this approach.

    "Xi Jinping thinks there must be unquestionable acceptance of the party line, the party must control everything and that's the only way China will meet the formidable problems it faces today."

    China's global web of spies and informants
    While Chinese dissidents fear for their own safety, concerns are also growing over China's increasing influence over key institutions in countries like the US, Canada and Australia.

    In the US, the FBI and CIA recently accused China of using a global web of spies and informants to intimidate and neutralise its critics.

    "The biggest issue of our time, in my view, is China and the risk they pose," Senator Marco Rubio told a congressional hearing in Washington in February. "I'm not sure in the 240-some-odd-year history of this nation we've ever faced a competitor and potential adversary to have this scale, scope and capacity."

    One of the greatest concerns relates to the 500 Confucius Institutes China operates at universities around the world.

    The centres claim to teach Chinese culture and language, but critics say they are a propaganda tool.

    "On campus … they can build up a friendly network to China and can influence the future generations of the Western countries," says Chen Yonglin, the defector. "Politically sensitive topics are banned. Topics like Falun Gong, democracy and freedom, human rights in China - all banned."

    But the director of the Confucius Institute at the University of Massachusetts in Boston denies that it serves as an arm of the Chinese government.

    "Every Confucius Institute is working to be a bridge between the US and China," says Beifang Sun. "We have nothing to do with the Chinese government's censorship."

    'Democracy and human dignity will prevail'
    When it comes to the alleged threats to Chinese activists overseas, the Chinese government denied the allegations.

    "Regarding those groundless accusations, we really do not want to waste time responding to them one by one," Hua Chunying, a foreign ministry spokesperson said last month.

    "We hope that relevant people can abandon the Cold War mentality and zero-sum game mindset and create favourable conditions for the sound development of our relations with an open and inclusive attitude."

    But activists like Teng Biao say it's time for democratic countries to take a stand and do more to support those living under China's shadow.

    "There are always activists and heroes willing to sacrifice themselves to speak out, to fight against these atrocities and the dictatorship," he says.

    "So for the long run, democracy and human dignity will prevail."
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  6. #51
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquila View Post
    Well how about you let me know when you understand the country's reality, and we can carry on that discussion. You are so blinded by the past you cannot recognise that the situation China face today is unprecedented... they've never been in this much debt before....ever.
    Aquila,

    You really want to get into this?
    OK.

    I’m going to make a generous assumption that you understand the fundamental difference between domestic and foreign debt, and more, that you recognize that domestic debt in China can only be logically thought of if it is divided between state and the private sector. If you aren’t on board with that, then it’s time to go back and do some more study.

    In the first two decades of the reform era, up until 1997, foreign debt exceeded foreign exchange reserves. In 1986-89, debt was double reserves; in 1992-93, it was triple. The level and growth of foreign debt played a significant factor in the conflict among the elders during that time, with Chen Yun in particular at odds with Deng Xiaoping over the matter. So, debt isn't new as a policy issue, and the threat isn't at an all-time high in terms of what's important in China.

    On the domestic side, the government’s debt-to-GDP is under 40% (see IMF report, http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/C...rt-Staff-46121), which is the technical definition of “what problem?”

    The main issue is that the money state-owned enterprises (SOEs) owe to state-owned banks needs to be taken out of the equation, since where the loss is recorded is merely an accounting principle. Further, as the IMF (above) pointed out on p. 16, “any illegally incurred debt would be borne by the firm and its investors, rather than the government.”

    Should I assume you’ve read the Ferrarini-Hinojales ADB paper on the subject from earlier this year? If not, start here: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/fi...y-analysis.pdf. So, we take Rmb35.9 trillion off the top, which is more than 30% of nonfinancial debt or about 51% of GDP.

    As UBS said in January,
    While it's true that China has a large and growing debt burden - equal to 257.64% of GDP at the end of 2016, compared with 161.1% in 2006 - the debt situation is quite different to those that caused the aforementioned crises [i.e., 1997-98 and 2007-09].
    For starters, while it's true that there has been some inefficient allocation of credit, debt is concentrated differently in China. Debts are largely owned by state-owned enterprises and owed to the government, which means the government can coordinate orderly debt restructuring [that’s a fancy way of saying it’s an accounting issue].
    Also, almost all domestic debt is financed via Chinese banks, and external, dollar-denominated debt is low, which means little or no risk from the massive withdrawals by outside investors which caused the Asia Crisis.
    Furthermore, China has a very strong trade position. China's large balance of payments surplus, plus enormous FX reserves and capital controls, protect the financial system from capital flight.
    China has a high savings rate, which means banks have huge capital resources. Domestic savings are very high and capital markets are under-developed, so saving largely exists as deposits or quasi-deposits in the banking system to finance debt.
    Finally, and most importantly, China's regulators have learnt the lessons of the past, are well aware of credit growth and the shadow banking system, and are taking steps to rein in excess debt growth. These factors, combined with the above points, mean that a domestic financial crisis in China is highly unlikely
    .”
    https://www.ubs.com/microsites/china...different.html

    Six months later, Nick Lardy says in the FT, “No need to panic, China’s banks are in pretty good shape.https://www.ft.com/content/5bfb049a-...d-c11776a5124d
    Shortly thereafter, The Economist asks, “Does this [debt-to-GDP reaching 200%] mean Chna faces a debt crisis? Far from it.” https://www.economist.com/free-excha...0-and-counting


    Your turn.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  7. #52
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,018
    Quote Originally Posted by hboGYT View Post
    I was referring to Oracle challenging you to name another Asian country that adopted similar economic policies to the current Chinese ones. You never did oblige him.
    Sorry, must have missed that.

    No, I can't think of another Asian economy following the China model. First, the really successful ones pre-dated China's reform era, and China was actually learning from them (particularly the differences between zaibatsu and chaebol). But, much more important, I can't for the life of me think of why anyone should be "challenged" to show that two coutries followed the same path.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  8. #53
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquila View Post
    I missed this... don't receive notifications yet...not sure how this works...
    This board des not issue notifications whenever some one replies. The way we do it is return to discussion threads to see if there are any replies. The volume of posts here is much lower so it isn't an issue. Clicking "New posts" in the top left will give you a list of updated discussion threads. A smaller list can be seen at the bottom of the main page. The only time you see a notification is if some one sends you a personal message.

    No, I wouldn't call the loans unethical if I did. Lending money to someone when you know they can't repay it is unethical because you are doing it so you can take something they wouldn't otherwise give you... like a piece of their country. It would be naive to assume all countries are equally astute at handling their finances, they are not. If America or other Western countries did this the media would be screaming from the rooftops, we give them aid, for votes in the UN only for this very reason.
    I'd argue that's exactly what happened in a domestic context. The sub prime mortgage crisis was caused by banks making home loans to people who had no clue what they were getting into. The noughts were an era of easy and cheap capital. it spread across the world. Then we had the crisis in 2008. Countries that weren't as tightly integrated into the US market managed to avoid the worst of it. But there still was this problem of credit. Not as easy or as cheap as it once was. The danger was credit would dry up worldwide causing a global depression. Not recession.

    So the Finance ministers of the G20 got together in 2010 and collectively agreed to keep the taps flowing. So as to avoid a global depression. Reduce the spread of crisis, to contain it. This meant banks in many countries made out loans so as to keep the economy afloat. This has resulted in a lot of NPA's for banks around the world i imagine. The Chinese pursued this policy zealously in 2010. At the same time oil prices were at a historic high and rising. Inflation inducing meaning more spending.

    The Malaysian issue is related to corruption by their former PM and exactly another reason why these loans are unethical, don't tell me the Chinese had no clue what they're arranging with Razak was illegal.
    https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/fo...03-p4zpaa.html
    Of course the Chinese know what they are doing. What's wrong with it. They're not the ones pushing anything, they're enforcing agreements that were made. Screw them about and nobody will lend anything to you any more. Chinese are the lenders of last resort. Their terms are going to be stiff.

    What i'm pushing back against is this ethical requirement. You are arguing for people not understanding what they get into, ie not reading the small print then complaining after. That sovereign countries aren't responsible for decisions they take on their own behalf isn't a tenable argument.

    It's this sentiment against banksters (gangster bankers) that i'm talking about. Very prevalent when people lost their homes due to non payment of loans taken out. No interest loans. No fractional banking. How is lending possible to the extent we've known it for the last half millenium then.

    Chinese are only following what the Japanese have been doing for a half century. Japanese interest rates are fractions of a percent. Chinese rates tend to be ten times higher. It's interesting to note that nobody accuses Japan of taking over the world despite a sordid half century history of doing just that but China is the new bad boy now with no history of colonisation.


    As far as the Trade war goes, Trump Administration is looking for more than just an even trade balance, intelectual property is stolen, techonology is stolen, and unfair business practices cause Americans to lose their jobs. I'm not even sure the Chinese can give Trump what he wants because business practices in China is so corrupt Western companies would have to pay off hundreds if not thousands of officials just to operate in China.
    If China says and means they want to buy $10 trillion from the world then that's a start. Foreign tech companies have had a tough time operating in China. I don't think it was corruption that got in the way more like non-tariff barriers. So Huawei not getting contracts is just same for same



    This video ties into the topic quite well
    Last edited by Double Edge; 29 Aug 18, at 13:54.

  9. #54
    Patron
    Join Date
    07 Jan 08
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Aquila,

    You really want to get into this?
    OK.

    I’m going to make a generous assumption that you understand the fundamental difference between domestic and foreign debt, and more, that you recognize that domestic debt in China can only be logically thought of if it is divided between state and the private sector. If you aren’t on board with that, then it’s time to go back and do some more study.

    In the first two decades of the reform era, up until 1997, foreign debt exceeded foreign exchange reserves. In 1986-89, debt was double reserves; in 1992-93, it was triple. The level and growth of foreign debt played a significant factor in the conflict among the elders during that time, with Chen Yun in particular at odds with Deng Xiaoping over the matter. So, debt isn't new as a policy issue, and the threat isn't at an all-time high in terms of what's important in China.

    On the domestic side, the government’s debt-to-GDP is under 40% (see IMF report, http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/C...rt-Staff-46121), which is the technical definition of “what problem?”

    The main issue is that the money state-owned enterprises (SOEs) owe to state-owned banks needs to be taken out of the equation, since where the loss is recorded is merely an accounting principle. Further, as the IMF (above) pointed out on p. 16, “any illegally incurred debt would be borne by the firm and its investors, rather than the government.”

    Should I assume you’ve read the Ferrarini-Hinojales ADB paper on the subject from earlier this year? If not, start here: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/fi...y-analysis.pdf. So, we take Rmb35.9 trillion off the top, which is more than 30% of nonfinancial debt or about 51% of GDP.

    As UBS said in January,
    While it's true that China has a large and growing debt burden - equal to 257.64% of GDP at the end of 2016, compared with 161.1% in 2006 - the debt situation is quite different to those that caused the aforementioned crises [i.e., 1997-98 and 2007-09].
    For starters, while it's true that there has been some inefficient allocation of credit, debt is concentrated differently in China. Debts are largely owned by state-owned enterprises and owed to the government, which means the government can coordinate orderly debt restructuring [that’s a fancy way of saying it’s an accounting issue].
    Also, almost all domestic debt is financed via Chinese banks, and external, dollar-denominated debt is low, which means little or no risk from the massive withdrawals by outside investors which caused the Asia Crisis.
    Furthermore, China has a very strong trade position. China's large balance of payments surplus, plus enormous FX reserves and capital controls, protect the financial system from capital flight.
    China has a high savings rate, which means banks have huge capital resources. Domestic savings are very high and capital markets are under-developed, so saving largely exists as deposits or quasi-deposits in the banking system to finance debt.
    Finally, and most importantly, China's regulators have learnt the lessons of the past, are well aware of credit growth and the shadow banking system, and are taking steps to rein in excess debt growth. These factors, combined with the above points, mean that a domestic financial crisis in China is highly unlikely
    .”
    https://www.ubs.com/microsites/china...different.html

    Six months later, Nick Lardy says in the FT, “No need to panic, China’s banks are in pretty good shape.https://www.ft.com/content/5bfb049a-...d-c11776a5124d
    Shortly thereafter, The Economist asks, “Does this [debt-to-GDP reaching 200%] mean Chna faces a debt crisis? Far from it.” https://www.economist.com/free-excha...0-and-counting


    Your turn.
    In another word, China's problem is chronic not acute, that chronic mis-allocation of resources gradually destroys value, but the economy will not collapse catastrophically?

  10. #55
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Aug 18
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DOR View Post
    Aquila,

    You really want to get into this?
    OK.

    I’m going to make a generous assumption that you understand the fundamental difference between domestic and foreign debt, and more, that you recognize that domestic debt in China can only be logically thought of if it is divided between state and the private sector. If you aren’t on board with that, then it’s time to go back and do some more study.

    Just babble about your supposed superiority ^^ (Google biggest eyeroll on the planet and insert here)


    The rest of your post is the biggest load of rubbish I’ve ever read in my life.

    They are faking it…. “yes… yes… oh yes 6.5% GDP!” pfft… in your dreams DOR, clearly you don’t know the difference between what’s real and what’s fake.

    The main issue is that the money state-owned enterprises (*SOEs*) owe to state-owned banks needs to be taken out of the equation since where the loss is recorded is merely an accounting principle.
    LOL You mean they are going to shove it in a black box and leave it there until inflation chews it up, does not make it irrelevant. Are you just trying to be funny or is this how you normally think. Trillions in debt… ah forget about it we’ll cook the books. THAT’s THE WHOLE PROBLEM it’s a fake economy, how do you pay back trillions in debt with a fake economy, you take out more loans to pay back loans or you shove it in a black box… but you end up paying anyway by remaining stagnant for 10 – 20 years until inflation have caught up with you.

    Their economy did crash in 2008, but refusing to admit they have become stagnant… a zombie, they stole the properties of over 60 million villagers, sold it to developers who went out and borrowed trillions to build twice as many housing units they need, factories they don’t use and commercial properties that remain empty. Their GDP is all based on this stolen property boom, they’re running out of land btw now they’re levelling mountains and pushing back the sea. On top of that they created 63% of the worlds new money through loans, then wasted it by creating demand for investment products’ in a market flooded with money, enter the asset bubble, property and share market prices in China, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, UK, US to highest levels ever… (the Russians did a similar thing but we’ll keep them out of it to simplify this for you).

    The fantasy about the rise of China is fake, they’re nowhere near the American economy, they just wish they were. You just keep buying all the crap they are selling you ok... now nod you head.

  11. #56
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Aug 18
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by hboGYT View Post
    In another word, China's problem is chronic not acute, that chronic mis-allocation of resources gradually destroys value, but the economy will not collapse catastrophically?
    Doesn't have to collapse, just needs to sit there and do nothing... or eat brains


  12. #57
    Regular
    Join Date
    25 Aug 18
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    This board des not issue notifications whenever some one replies. The way we do it is return to discussion threads to see if there are any replies. The volume of posts here is much lower so it isn't an issue. Clicking "New posts" in the top left will give you a list of updated discussion threads. A smaller list can be seen at the bottom of the main page. The only time you see a notification is if some one sends you a personal message.
    Thank you I’m getting the drift… and someone else explained it to me in the intro thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    I'd argue that's exactly what happened in a domestic context. The sub prime mortgage crisis was caused by banks making home loans to people who had no clue what they were getting into. The noughts were an era of easy and cheap capital. it spread across the world. Then we had the crisis in 2008. Countries that weren't as tightly integrated into the US market managed to avoid the worst of it. But there still was this problem of credit. Not as easy or as cheap as it once was. The danger was credit would dry up worldwide causing a global depression. Not recession.

    So the Finance ministers of the G20 got together in 2010 and collectively agreed to keep the taps flowing. So as to avoid a global depression. Reduce the spread of crisis, to contain it. This meant banks in many countries made out loans so as to keep the economy afloat. This has resulted in a lot of NPA's for banks around the world i imagine. The Chinese pursued this policy zealously in 2010. At the same time oil prices were at a historic high and rising. Inflation inducing meaning more spending.

    Of course the Chinese know what they are doing. What's wrong with it. They're not the ones pushing anything, they're enforcing agreements that were made. Screw them about and nobody will lend anything to you any more. Chinese are the lenders of last resort. Their terms are going to be stiff.
    Yes, similar to sub prime although much larger scale and far more opaque. But I disagree that they know what they are doing. If they knew what they were doing they wouldn’t be in the situation they are currently in. Also the LGFV companies began as a way to circumvent Beijing’s efforts to curb the out of control debt, Beijing failed and China’s local governments created a monster. Beijing brings in rules and the Chinese find a way around it, I would not call that knowing what you are doing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    What i'm pushing back against is this ethical requirement. You are arguing for people not understanding what they get into, ie not reading the small print then complaining after. That sovereign countries aren't responsible for decisions they take on their own behalf isn't a tenable argument.

    It's this sentiment against banksters (gangster bankers) that i'm talking about. Very prevalent when people lost their homes due to non payment of loans taken out. No

    interest loans. No fractional banking. How is lending possible to the extent we've known it for the last half millenium then.
    Ok, I disagree I believe it’s unethical to lend someone money knowing they can’t repay and you’re going to get a prime piece of their land

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Chinese are only following what the Japanese have been doing for a half century. Japanese interest rates are fractions of a percent. Chinese rates tend to be ten times higher. It's interesting to note that nobody accuses Japan of taking over the world despite a sordid half century history of doing just that but China is the new bad boy now with no history of colonisation.
    lol what they are doing is colonisation, 99 year lease sound familiar.

    The Japanese is now emerging very slowly from their zombie economy status, they also have an aging population similar to China but have invested heavily in AI and robotics to help workers remain in their jobs longer. I think they had two quarters of positive growth this past year… would have to double check.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    If China says and means they want to buy $10 trillion from the world then that's a start. Foreign tech companies have had a tough time operating in China. I don't think it was corruption that got in the way more like non-tariff barriers. So Huawei not getting contracts is just same for same
    Chinese companies are heavily subsidised ok, it’s a well known fact, it’s also in the whitehouse documents I posted earlier. Without the subsidies other Asian countries would stand a much better chance, they're not just competing unfairly with the west they are also subsiding their neighbours out of business.

  13. #58
    Senior Contributor DOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquila View Post
    Just babble about your supposed superiority ^^ (Google biggest eyeroll on the planet and insert here)


    The rest of your post is the biggest load of rubbish I’ve ever read in my life.

    They are faking it…. “yes… yes… oh yes 6.5% GDP!” pfft… in your dreams DOR, clearly you don’t know the difference between what’s real and what’s fake.



    LOL You mean they are going to shove it in a black box and leave it there until inflation chews it up, does not make it irrelevant. Are you just trying to be funny or is this how you normally think. Trillions in debt… ah forget about it we’ll cook the books. THAT’s THE WHOLE PROBLEM it’s a fake economy, how do you pay back trillions in debt with a fake economy, you take out more loans to pay back loans or you shove it in a black box… but you end up paying anyway by remaining stagnant for 10 – 20 years until inflation have caught up with you.

    Their economy did crash in 2008, but refusing to admit they have become stagnant… a zombie, they stole the properties of over 60 million villagers, sold it to developers who went out and borrowed trillions to build twice as many housing units they need, factories they don’t use and commercial properties that remain empty. Their GDP is all based on this stolen property boom, they’re running out of land btw now they’re levelling mountains and pushing back the sea. On top of that they created 63% of the worlds new money through loans, then wasted it by creating demand for investment products’ in a market flooded with money, enter the asset bubble, property and share market prices in China, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, UK, US to highest levels ever… (the Russians did a similar thing but we’ll keep them out of it to simplify this for you).

    The fantasy about the rise of China is fake, they’re nowhere near the American economy, they just wish they were. You just keep buying all the crap they are selling you ok... now nod you head.
    Not a shred of evidence, I see.

    Manufacturing didn’t rise 10% in 2008, construction 9.5%, M-2 17.8%, exports 17.2%, imports 18.5%, and the forex reserves by $417.8 billion.

    The IMF, ADB, FT and The Economist are nothing but fake news to you, because you know and everyone else just does the hard research.

    Got it. Sorry I wasted my time with you.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

  14. #59
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,064
    Group of U.S. lawmakers urges China sanctions over Xinjiang abuses

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday urged the United States to impose sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for human rights abuses of minority Muslims in Xinjiang, saying the region was being turned into a “high-tech police state.”

    The group, led by Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Chris Smith, Republican co-chairs of the bipartisan Congressional Executive Commission on China, made the call in a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

    Muslims in China’s far western region of Xinjiang were “being subjected to arbitrary detention, torture, egregious restrictions on religious practice and culture, and a digitized surveillance system so pervasive that every aspect of daily life is monitored,” said the letter, signed by 15 U.S. senators and representatives, besides Rubio and Smith.The letter, signed by nine Republicans, seven Democrats and one Independent, called for sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act against senior Chinese government and Communist Party officials overseeing the policies, including Xinjiang party chief Chen Quanguo, and for other measures to be considered.

    The Magnitsky Act was originally designed to target Russian Rights violators, but has been expanded to allow sanctions for abuses anywhere in the world.

    “The Chinese government is creating a high-tech police state in (Xinjiang) that is both a gross violation of privacy and international human rights,” the letter said.

    China has said Xinjiang faces a serious threat from Islamist militants and separatists who plot attacks and stir up tension between the mostly Muslim Uighur minority who call the region home and the ethnic Han Chinese majority.

    In Beijing on Thursday, foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said the United States did “not have the right” to make “unwarranted criticism” of China’s policies toward ethnic minorities, and pointed to racial discrimination in the U.S.

    If viewed without bias or prejudice, China’s ethnic minority policies, and the rights and equality ethnic minorities enjoy, are even stronger than in the United States,” she told a regular news briefing.

    She said U.S. lawmakers should concentrate on serving Americans rather than “interfere with the domestic affairs of other countries”, adding that China protected religious freedoms in line with the law.

    A United Nations human rights panel this month said it had received many credible reports that 1 million ethnic Uighurs in China were held in what resembled a “massive internment camp that is shrouded in secrecy.

    Hundreds of people have been killed in violence in Xinjiang in recent years, prompting the tough security measures.

    The U.S. lawmakers’ letter said as many as a million or more Uighurs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities were being detained in “political re-education” centers or camps, and called for “a tough, targeted, and global response.”

    It added, “No Chinese official or business complicit in what is happening ... should profit from access to the United States or the U.S. financial system.”

    The U.S. State Department has said it is deeply troubled by Beijing’s crackdown in Xinjiang, but has declined to comment on the possibility of future sanctions on Chen and others.

    Critics have said the security and surveillance in Xinjiang have created near martial law conditions, with police checkpoints, reeducation centers and mass DNA collection.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  15. #60
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquila View Post
    Yes, similar to sub prime although much larger scale and far more opaque. But I disagree that they know what they are doing. If they knew what they were doing they wouldn’t be in the situation they are currently in. Also the LGFV companies began as a way to circumvent Beijing’s efforts to curb the out of control debt, Beijing failed and China’s local governments created a monster. Beijing brings in rules and the Chinese find a way around it, I would not call that knowing what you are doing.
    I don't understand what you mean by the bolded part. How does that relate to lending to other countries.

    What you're saying is China seems to have a federalist streak and that the centre's grip over the country is weakening at least when it comes to economic affairs.

    Ok, I disagree I believe it’s unethical to lend someone money knowing they can’t repay and you’re going to get a prime piece of their land
    Doesn't Rajapaksa share any blame here ? he wasn't strong armed into signing the agreement. He went into the deal knowing full well what the consequences would be. Yet he still went ahead.

    lol what they are doing is colonisation, 99 year lease sound familiar.
    People use that term frequently. Colonisation implies loss of sovereiginty.

    You mean to tell me Sri Lanka has zero say over what the Chinese do with Hambantota ?

    You' re also assuming the Chinese will stay the full term of the lease.

    Chinese companies are heavily subsidised ok, it’s a well known fact, it’s also in the whitehouse documents I posted earlier. Without the subsidies other Asian countries would stand a much better chance, they're not just competing unfairly with the west they are also subsiding their neighbours out of business.
    SOE's do have an advantage, comparing the top 5 constuction companies these days to fifteen years ago shows the Chinese are dominant in this space, like the Koreans and Japanese were decades earlier.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. US cannot accept China military power: state media
    By Ray in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 22 Jan 11,, 04:52
  2. Warning over 'surveillance state'
    By xrough in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16 Feb 09,, 10:56
  3. Were the suicide bombers already under surveillance?
    By indianguy4u in forum International Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15 Jul 05,, 12:19
  4. Yahoo expanding 'surveillance'
    By Rhodan in forum International Economy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 18 May 05,, 22:28
  5. Taiwanese stage mass rally to protest China's anti-secession law
    By amit in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26 Mar 05,, 18:03

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •