How does the World view China these days?

  On 8/12/2021 at 7:17 PM, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

the complaint that China has billionaires is essentially "China has not yet achieved socialism" which they themselves admit.  China has immense capital, and has not achieved socialism, therefore billionaires exist.  they are not the same as billionaires who exist in a capitalist country where they can bend the law to their will for the expanse of their capital, as we can see with China clamping down on various billionaires and countries

The number of billionaires has grown in China, not shrank. And the point is not so much about billionaires, but the increasing wealth inequality in China.

  On 8/12/2021 at 7:20 PM, Alcofribas said:

I reside in China and I can keep my cum. All of it. Let that settle in for a moment.
 

I don’t have to share any of my cum in China. 

Is that anti-cummunist?

  On 8/12/2021 at 7:21 PM, chenGOD said:

The number of billionaires has grown in China, not shrank. And the point is not so much about billionaires, but the increasing wealth inequality in China.

 

Is that anti-cummunist?

why would it shrink? their capital is increasing immensely. as they move towards the achievement of socialism it will shrink. these attempted left critiques of socialist countries by people who are presumably right wing are always weird

  On 8/12/2021 at 7:17 PM, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

they are not the same as billionaires who exist in a capitalist country where they can bend the law to their will for the expanse of their capital, as we can see with China clamping down on various billionaires and countries

Except they are:

https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/china-comrade-billionaires-jack-ma-pledge-loyalty-communist-party/521239/

  Quote

An academic study published in 2018 found that when firms linked to the twenty-five or so members of the Politburo purchased land owned by local governments, they paid less than half the price paid by buyers without political connections. Members of the supreme, seven-member Standing Committee of the Politburo received a 75 per cent discount. The obliging local officials all expected promotions in return.

As Minxin Pei shows at length in his 2016 book, those promotions are in turn monetised through the extraction of bribes from lower-level officials and businessmen. The 2018 study shows that President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption crackdown led to only a small decline in the discounts provided to Party leaders.

Expand  

Now, that academic study they cite has the following in it:

  Quote

the first significant task the new party secretary Xi Jinping [this was before he rose to power] took on was to launch an anticorruption campaign to weed out corruption. Xi's campaign differs distinctly from those of his predecessors in a number of crucial respects. First, he strengthened the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), an organization with the goal of ferreting out corrupt officials. Second, the campaign continues to this day with greater intensity (of investigation and arrest). Third, having recognized the land market as a hotbed of corruption, Xi singled it out as a major target. Fourth, he ignored the “diplomatic immunity” implicitly granted to the most powerful political figures within the communist hierarchy and went after a member of the Politburo Standing Committee, Zhou Yongkang.

So you're thinking, great, Xi is really committed to equality, not abusing the party to gain material wealth etc etc.

Meanwhile:

Xi Jinping's family amassing wealth: https://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-leaders-family-worth-a-billion-20120629-218qi.html

  On 8/12/2021 at 5:36 PM, chenGOD said:

It's not for phones, it's certain computer equipment, probably that the US believes is dual-use.

Iran is a surprisingly well functioning society (given the circumstances, anyway) and not everything that is needed to make it so is made in China. French and German companies are also very busy selling serious equipment to Iran using methods that according to some incredible dickfuck laws set by US Congress are illegal. Luckily the US is smart enough not to look into that too deeply.

I will stand by my original point: arresting Ms Meng was a dick move. Even if they let her stay in her own villa to await the trial. Everyone knew China wasn’t going to let that slide and everyone knows Chinese jails are horrible. 

The responsibility for this clusterfuck lies entirely with the US and with the dumbasses in Canada that refused to let her “accidentally” slip out of the country.

  On 8/12/2021 at 7:30 PM, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

why would it shrink? their capital is increasing immensely. as they move towards the achievement of socialism it will shrink. these attempted left critiques of socialist countries by people who are presumably right wing are always weird

You have repeatedly said that China is moving toward the achievement of socialism. But the number of billionaires is growing, which is in direct contradiction to your above claim.

Also, we're not critiquing a socialist country, as you yourself have said many times that China is not socialist.

Finally, I'm not right wing, but you're definitely down with the authoritarian mode.

  On 8/12/2021 at 7:48 PM, rhmilo said:

Iran is a surprisingly well functioning society (given the circumstances, anyway) and not everything that is needed to make it so is made in China. French and German companies are also very busy selling serious equipment to Iran using methods that according to some incredible dickfuck laws set by US Congress are illegal. Luckily the US is smart enough not to look into that too deeply.

I will stand by my original point: arresting Ms Meng was a dick move. Even if they let her stay in her own villa to await the trial. Everyone knew China wasn’t going to let that slide and everyone knows Chinese jails are horrible. 

The responsibility for this clusterfuck lies entirely with the US and with the dumbasses in Canada that refused to let her “accidentally” slip out of the country.

 

Expand  

What kind of strawman argument are you building in your first sentence? If French and German companies were selling to Iran and using the US banking system to clear payments, you can bet the US would investigate. Since they're using the euro marketplace, there is nothing the US can do.

Edit: also, clearly some French companies did leave Iran to be replaced by Chinese ones, so it's another unintended consequence of the idiotic sanctions Trump put in place. I'll repeat, I don't agree with sanctions, they are a lazy tool that attempt to replace actual diplomacy.

So just to be clear, you're ok with ignoring the rule of law?

  On 8/12/2021 at 8:03 PM, chenGOD said:

If French and German companies were selling to Iran and using the US banking system to clear payments, you can bet the US would investigate.

They are (we’re) not using the US banking system to clear payments - that would’ve been silly. But even clearing payments outside of the US does not get you out of trouble with the US, simply being known to be doing business with Iran is enough. It’s what the second article you linked to calls “secondary sanctions”.

  On 8/12/2021 at 8:03 PM, chenGOD said:

So just to be clear, you're ok with ignoring the rule of law?

Wait wut? Where do you get that from?

BTW, lots of laws don’t apply to diplomats. Embassy personnel can collect speeding tickets as much as they like, for example, and will never have to pay them (which is why you have to be careful around cars with diplomatic  license plates - they drive like crazy) and even for more serious stuff they often get off free. It’s how diplomacy works.

  On 8/12/2021 at 7:54 PM, chenGOD said:

You have repeatedly said that China is moving toward the achievement of socialism. But the number of billionaires is growing, which is in direct contradiction to your above claim.

Also, we're not critiquing a socialist country, as you yourself have said many times that China is not socialist.

Finally, I'm not right wing, but you're definitely down with the authoritarian mode.

>China is not socialist

i'd be surprised if you could even attempt to elaborate on what this sentence even means

  On 8/12/2021 at 8:03 PM, chenGOD said:

So just to be clear, you're ok with ignoring the rule of law?

"ignoring the rule of law" on the international stage tends to just mean "not doing what the US wants"

  On 8/12/2021 at 8:55 PM, rhmilo said:

They are (we’re) not using the US banking system to clear payments - that would’ve been silly. But even clearing payments outside of the US does not get you out of trouble with the US, simply being known to be doing business with Iran is enough. It’s what the second article you linked to calls “secondary sanctions”.

From the second article (which is about TotalEnergie):

  Quote

Total SA initially requested a waiver from the US government to continue work on the project, but their appeal seems to have been unsuccessful. As the company outlines in a May press release, an estimated 90 percent of the company’s finances are run through US banks and 30 percent of shareholders are US-based, making weathering the sanctions very difficult.

  On 8/12/2021 at 8:55 PM, rhmilo said:

  On 8/12/2021 at 8:03 PM, chenGOD said:

So just to be clear, you're ok with ignoring the rule of law?

Wait wut? Where do you get that from?

From the part where you said:

  On 8/12/2021 at 7:48 PM, rhmilo said:

the dumbasses in Canada that refused to let her “accidentally” slip out of the country.

  On 8/12/2021 at 8:55 PM, rhmilo said:

BTW, lots of laws don’t apply to diplomats. Embassy personnel can collect speeding tickets as much as they like, for example, and will never have to pay them (which is why you have to be careful around cars with diplomatic  license plates - they drive like crazy)

Meng isn't a diplomat though.

Yes I'm aware - there are somewhere around 6,000 diplomats in Ottawa. I almost got sideswiped by one today lol. Generally the diplomat drivers here are nowhere near as aggressive as the Ontarians...

  On 8/12/2021 at 9:07 PM, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

>China is not socialist

i'd be surprised if you could even attempt to elaborate on what this sentence even means

You've said it many times in various threads. "China is not socialist, they're moving towards it".

But here: https://hbr.org/2021/05/americans-dont-know-how-capitalist-china-is

And here: https://www.inkstonenews.com/china-translated/china-translated-china-socialist/article/2161467

And here: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/21/millions-of-new-investors-piled-into-chinese-stock-markets-in-2020.html

And finally here: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-12-04/chinese-communist-party-failed

  On 8/12/2021 at 9:09 PM, chenGOD said:

From the second article (which is about TotalEnergie):

Ah, right. I thought you meant they clear payments *from Iran* through the US. What this is talking about is the thing that makes the sanctions unilaterally imposed by the US so effective - most companies like doing business with the US more than they like doing business with Iran.

  On 8/12/2021 at 9:09 PM, chenGOD said:

From the part where you said:

  On 8/12/2021 at 7:48 PM, rhmilo said:

the dumbasses in Canada that refused to let her “accidentally” slip out of the country.

Ah, ok. Yes, in some cases I think not being too rigid about upholding laws, especially silly ones like these, is wise.

Especially since:

  On 8/12/2021 at 9:09 PM, chenGOD said:

Meng isn't a diplomat though

She is a senior figure in one of the most important companies in China, so in a sense she might as well be, just like there would likely be trouble if China would, for example, arrest the vice chairman of the board of Bombardier.

It’s not fair, but some people are more important than others. Arresting her without the consent of China was a very dumb thing to do.

  On 8/12/2021 at 9:26 PM, rhmilo said:

I thought you meant they clear payments *from Iran* through the US.

They probably did clear some payments from Iran through the US. If 90% of their payments went through the US dollar market.

  On 8/12/2021 at 9:26 PM, rhmilo said:

in some cases I think not being too rigid about upholding laws, especially silly ones like these, is wise.

If the law is silly, the way to go about it is by amending the law. I wouldn't say extradition laws are particularly silly either.

  On 8/12/2021 at 9:26 PM, rhmilo said:

She is a senior figure in one of the most important companies in China, so in a sense she might as well be

Still not a diplomat. Diplomatic immunity is clearly defined.

  On 8/12/2021 at 9:26 PM, rhmilo said:

Arresting her without the consent of China

Come on man. Really? Really?

>arrests important Chinese figure based on flimsy claims

>surprised when China arrests spies in return

i wonder if the people in guantanamo are given visitation rights

  On 8/12/2021 at 9:44 PM, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

>arrests important Chinese figure based on flimsy claims

>surprised when China arrests spies in return

i wonder if the people in guantanamo are given visitation rights

Who knows about Guantanamo, but up here in Canada prisoners get visitation rights.

Also, just like the last time China tried this, neither of the people involved are spies.

(In that case the only person found guilty was the actual spy, who made a plea deal: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-man-su-bin-pleads-guilty-to-stealing-u-s-military-secrets-1.3505571)

  On 8/12/2021 at 9:31 PM, chenGOD said:

They probably did clear some payments from Iran through the US. If 90% of their payments went through the US dollar market.

 

If the law is silly, the way to go about it is by amending the law. I wouldn't say extradition laws are particularly silly either.

Still not a diplomat. Diplomatic immunity is clearly defined.

Come on man. Really? Really?

Expand  

It’s perfectly clear by now you’re adamant about your position that China is in the wrong and Canada is reasonable, so I’m not going to argue further with you about this, but I do want to point out the following:

In Saudi Arabia drinking and even owning alcohol is illegal. This law is stringently upheld, but not for rich western expats working in the oil industry (so not diplomats, mind you). Saudi police *never* raids compounds where westerners live even though they’re guaranteed to find alcohol there and when an ambitious young policeman stops a car with a westerner in it, opens the trunk and finds it completely filled with fruit (westerners are not involved in the fruit trade in Saudi Arabia and the only reason they fill their cars up with it is to ferment it) his superiors immediately tell him to let it go.

Saudi Arabia is wise enough not to uphold all of their laws for every foreigner in the country. Making a point on “the rule of law” to them is worth less than  not causing a diplomatic incident with countries they deem important.

(BTW, the crazy strict laws they have *are* in fact upheld for citizens of countries they deem to be less important, such as India, Bangladesh and Indonesia).

  On 8/13/2021 at 9:58 AM, rhmilo said:

It’s perfectly clear by now you’re adamant about your position that China is in the wrong and Canada is reasonable, so I’m not going to argue further with you about this, but I do want to point out the following:

In Saudi Arabia drinking and even owning alcohol is illegal. This law is stringently upheld, but not for rich western expats working in the oil industry (so not diplomats, mind you). Saudi police *never* raids compounds where westerners live even though they’re guaranteed to find alcohol there and when an ambitious young policeman stops a car with a westerner in it, opens the trunk and finds it completely filled with fruit (westerners are not involved in the fruit trade in Saudi Arabia and the only reason they fill their cars up with it is to ferment it) his superiors immediately tell him to let it go.

Saudi Arabia is wise enough not to uphold all of their laws for every foreigner in the country. Making a point on “the rule of law” to them is worth less than  not causing a diplomatic incident with countries they deem important.

(BTW, the crazy strict laws they have *are* in fact upheld for citizens of countries they deem to be less important, such as India, Bangladesh and Indonesia).

Expand  

The law ceases to be a law then. That's literally how you get to "laws for thee but not for me".

I'm not sure that Saudi Arabia is the model that countries should be striving to emulate. I mean unless you're cool with countries sending out hit squads to murder journalists?

  On 8/13/2021 at 3:00 PM, chenGOD said:

The law ceases to be a law then. That's literally how you get to "laws for thee but not for me".

I'm not sure that Saudi Arabia is the model that countries should be striving to emulate. I mean unless you're cool with countries sending out hit squads to murder journalists?

The lovely German word “Ambiguitätsintoleranz” seems apt here.

  On 8/13/2021 at 6:01 PM, rhmilo said:

The lovely German word “Ambiguitätsintoleranz” seems apt here.

 

Not at all. In ambiguous situations, there is a need for tolerance. The process for extradition is not particularly ambiguous. The interpretation by the judge may be. More blather in the spoiler, but extradition requests are not undertaken lightly. It's not like driving 5km/hr over the speed limit.

i'm into being a billionaire communistically

https://rumble.com/embed/viplit/?pub=4

interesting CRT message from the CCP

  On 8/19/2021 at 1:13 AM, Nebraska said:

https://rumble.com/embed/viplit/?pub=4

interesting CRT message from the CCP

Yup ... we're in a new Cold War.

  On 8/19/2021 at 1:13 AM, Nebraska said:

https://rumble.com/embed/viplit/?pub=4

interesting CRT message from the CCP

Hilarious.

What's hilarious?  Seems like a good video.  Are you opposed to its message?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/top-chinese-star-zhao-wei-clipped-on-country-s-internet
 

Now that’s fucking weird. 
 

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-rolls-out-new-rules-minors-online-gaming-xinhua-2021-08-30/
 

And so is this. 

the video game thing is realllllllly stupid and ableist too