All Things CHINA (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

What has China been up to lately? Not much, just the usual crimes against humanity and a new possible pandemic! Fun country.

https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c

"The Chinese government is taking draconian measures to slash birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities as part of a sweeping campaign to curb its Muslim population, even as it encourages some of the country’s Han majority to have more children.

While individual women have spoken out before about forced birth control, the practice is far more widespread and systematic than previously known, according to an AP investigation based on government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees, family members and a former detention camp instructor. The campaign over the past four years in the far west region of Xinjiang is leading to what some experts are calling a form of “demographic genocide.”

The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show. Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.

The population control measures are backed by mass detention both as a threat and as a punishment for failure to comply. Having too many children is a major reason people are sent to detention camps, the AP found, with the parents of three or more ripped away from their families unless they can pay huge fines. Police raid homes, terrifying parents as they search for hidden children."

 

[Farb]

I don't know what the problem could be. You are hitting the edit button, right?

Our greatest problem with China could be our own politicians' lack of understanding of China, their goals and their methodology. I believe that our politicians of both parties are thinking of Chinese actions in the same way that they would characterize actions by a European country, Russia, even other Asian countries like Japan. They do not operate in the same ways or largely have the same motivations.

I don't have all of the answers regarding China, but our recent administrations do not seem to have strong enough policies toward China to slow their expansion of influence in the world. We aren't a strong voice in curbing the atrocities the Chinese government inflicts on its own people, mostly because we have ceded any moral high ground we may have once had or at least pretended to have.

IMO, we are severely screwing up where China is concerned. We need a plan that Democrats and Republicans agree will be the preferred course with them and initiate policies to that end. Our current direction is all but handing them the mantle of most dominant country on the planet in my mind.

Imagine if US businesses woke up and suddenly started to virtue signal against China's treatment of humans? I am not sure that would not have a bigger impact than anything someone in Washington can do.

 

[Dragon]

True. The radical left is evil communist.
The right tends to think the left is gullible and dumb in their policies. The left thinks the right is evil for their policies. I am not sure how one cannot see the correlation between to the radical left and communism/marxism.

This is always something that makes me scratch my head. Why does Europe care who we vote or don't vote for? I couldn't even tell you who was president/PM or whatever they all have besides Boris Johnson (my white culture coming out) and Markel in Germany. That is it. Europe's infatuation with the US is kind of creepy. You guys are slipping into socialism and look at us for odd as to not embrace the loving warmth of a large central corrupt government.

What you call radical left, we call social democrats. Those at people who believe in the rights of everyone to succeed and that we all have a responsibility to society and to each other.
And when you talk about a large central corrupt government you better look closer to home too. We do have very strict rules when it comes to lobbyist and every single penny received by any party in donation will be public knowlegde. No hiding behind superpacts or similar structures and strict rules about how much (little) each donor can provide.

You may not believe it but the world does not end outside the US. We care because all nations on this planet we call earth depends on each other. What you do in the US, what China do, what Russia do and what the other European nation does will all affect ALL of us. Not just you and not just me.

Nothing you listed above is something conservatives or liberals for that matter would stand against. Granted, the path to the goal will be different. I would rather rely on the free market with very limited governmental input when necessary to solve these issues than a big ever growing government. A company goes down and parts of it are sold. A government goes down, it is taking as many and as much down with it as possible.

Sorry but companies are all about profit. They don't care about the safety of their workers or the impact their factories have on the environment if it affects the bottom line. And if they can get away with paying their employees so little that they will have to take a second job just to make ends meet, they will. AFAIK no completely unregulated free market have ever solved those issues without the government telling them to do so.

 

[SFIDC3]

Sorry but companies are all about profit. They don't care about the safety of their workers or the impact their factories have on the environment if it affects the bottom line. And if they can get away with paying their employees so little that they will have to take a second job just to make ends meet, they will. AFAIK no free market have ever solved those issues without the government telling them to do so.

Totally agreed, it's like some folks think if leave it up to free market (with little government interference or input if you like) we won't go back to a society (before unions) where if someone gets sick or hurt on the job they have fewer options/protection. Just one example, there are many (environmental impacts, workplace safety)....anyone who trusts corporate/industrial leadership to do the right thing for the working men and women is beyond naive....they, with few exceptions, are strictly about profit...

What has made this country great/thrive in the past is the correct balance of capitalism/socialism, when one (or the other) becomes too dominant we cease to be great....IMO, of course....

 

[Dragon]

Totally agreed, it's like some folks think if leave it up to free market (with little government interference or input if you like) we won't go back to a society (before unions) where if someone gets sick or hurt on the job they have fewer options/protection. Just one example, there are many (environmental impacts, workplace safety)....anyone who trusts corporate/industrial leadership to do the right thing for the working men and women is beyond naive....they, with few exceptions, are strictly about profit...

What has made this country great/thrive in the past is the correct balance of capitalism/socialism, when one (or the other) becomes too dominant we cease to be great....IMO, of course....

Precisely the way it is here....

 

[Richard]

Sorry but companies are all about profit. They don't care about the safety of their workers or the impact their factories have on the environment if it affects the bottom line. And if they can get away with paying their employees so little that they will have to take a second job just to make ends meet, they will. AFAIK no completely unregulated free market have ever solved those issues without the government telling them to do so.

Rephrasing for you, if I might, the survival of companies is all about profit. In our system, a company cannot continue to operate if there is not enough profit to sustain it. Profit is not bad. It is what allows companies to employ people, provide them with benefits, pay salaries/give raises, contribute to retirement plans, donate to community organizations and school functions and many other things. For our economic prosperity to continue profit isn't just good, it is necessary. While people like to attribute certain benefits to socialism, that isn't inherently true either. It benefits a company for its employees to have health insurance, retirement security, paid leave and a wage commensurate with a position's value to the company. No one, not even the capitalist, suggests that the US should have a completely unregulated workplace or market and everyone sees the inherent value in safety standards. Businesses and companies may have gotten away with a lot during the sweat shop days, but it wouldn't work for long today. The only ones that I can imagine trying that in the US today are those places that employ immigrant labor almost exclusively and many of those people are used to that and worse.

While I can appreciate the POV that corporations can do evil things, that does not mean all corporations or large companies are evil. We can bemoan the plight of the poorly paid worker, but I never expected to be paid well when I had no skills of value to offer the job market. That is their situation, not the evil company trying to keep them down.

Back to China. Most people in the US who would be considered left leaning Democrats are not truly "radical leftists." The true radical leftist may have some views in common with Democrats on the left, but the presentation of those views are different and the willingness to insist on compliance is different. I don't have any personal knowledge or statistics on the matter, but it seems to me that those who are truly radical leftists in America today are quite young. They might actually align philosophically with Castro or Mao, but they are way too young to remember what life was like in Cuba and China during the periods of their leadership. I do not see progressive Democrats as radical leftists.

 

[Farb]

Just to clarify becasue Richards post made me think on this. I do not consider left, liberal or democrat to be the radical left. The radical left to me is the same as the alt-right on the far end of the spectrum.

 

[Dragon]

Rephrasing for you, if I might, the survival of companies is all about profit. In our system, a company cannot continue to operate if there is not enough profit to sustain it. Profit is not bad. It is what allows companies to employ people, provide them with benefits, pay salaries/give raises, contribute to retirement plans, donate to community organizations and school functions and many other things. For our economic prosperity to continue profit isn't just good, it is necessary. While people like to attribute certain benefits to socialism, that isn't inherently true either. It benefits a company for its employees to have health insurance, retirement security, paid leave and a wage commensurate with a position's value to the company. No one, not even the capitalist, suggests that the US should have a completely unregulated workplace or market and everyone sees the inherent value in safety standards. Businesses and companies may have gotten away with a lot during the sweat shop days, but it wouldn't work for long today. The only ones that I can imagine trying that in the US today are those places that employ immigrant labor almost exclusively and many of those people are used to that and worse.

While I can appreciate the POV that corporations can do evil things, that does not mean all corporations or large companies are evil. We can bemoan the plight of the poorly paid worker, but I never expected to be paid well when I had no skills of value to offer the job market. That is their situation, not the evil company trying to keep them down.

Back to China. Most people in the US who would be considered left leaning Democrats are not truly "radical leftists." The true radical leftist may have some views in common with Democrats on the left, but the presentation of those views are different and the willingness to insist on compliance is different. I don't have any personal knowledge or statistics on the matter, but it seems to me that those who are truly radical leftists in America today are quite young. They might actually align philosophically with Castro or Mao, but they are way too young to remember what life was like in Cuba and China during the periods of their leadership. I do not see progressive Democrats as radical leftists.

I agree 100%. My response was to Farb who said that it was best for companies if there was no regulation at all - that is not the case most places. I also agree that not all companies are "evil" most actually knows the value of of dedicated and happy employees.

IMHO radical left has more in common with the radical right than they do with the centrists on both sides. Both see violence as a way to forward their "case" and both see the establishment as the enemy. China is a mixture of both sides. They use clasic socialist retoric to keep people in check, while at the same time using sweatshops and inhumane labor practises to enrich the elite party members. Add a total control over media and available information and the classic communist way of dealing with anyone who disent

 

[SFIDC3]

Rephrasing for you, if I might, the survival of companies is all about profit. In our system, a company cannot continue to operate if there is not enough profit to sustain it. Profit is not bad. It is what allows companies to employ people, provide them with benefits, pay salaries/give raises, contribute to retirement plans, donate to community organizations and school functions and many other things. For our economic prosperity to continue profit isn't just good, it is necessary. While people like to attribute certain benefits to socialism, that isn't inherently true either. It benefits a company for its employees to have health insurance, retirement security, paid leave and a wage commensurate with a position's value to the company. No one, not even the capitalist, suggests that the US should have a completely unregulated workplace or market and everyone sees the inherent value in safety standards. Businesses and companies may have gotten away with a lot during the sweat shop days, but it wouldn't work for long today. The only ones that I can imagine trying that in the US today are those places that employ immigrant labor almost exclusively and many of those people are used to that and worse.

While I can appreciate the POV that corporations can do evil things, that does not mean all corporations or large companies are evil. We can bemoan the plight of the poorly paid worker, but I never expected to be paid well when I had no skills of value to offer the job market. That is their situation, not the evil company trying to keep them down.

Back to China. Most people in the US who would be considered left leaning Democrats are not truly "radical leftists." The true radical leftist may have some views in common with Democrats on the left, but the presentation of those views are different and the willingness to insist on compliance is different. I don't have any personal knowledge or statistics on the matter, but it seems to me that those who are truly radical leftists in America today are quite young. They might actually align philosophically with Castro or Mao, but they are way too young to remember what life was like in Cuba and China during the periods of their leadership. I do not see progressive Democrats as radical leftists.

I don't disagree that profits are good, of course they are, but if that is the sole focus of a corporation and there is little to no government oversight? Lets just say I'm a bit more pessimistic than you are on what that would mean today....but, I agree with most of your post....well said...

 

[The moose]

Rephrasing for you, if I might, the survival of companies is all about profit. In our system, a company cannot continue to operate if there is not enough profit to sustain it. Profit is not bad. It is what allows companies to employ people, provide them with benefits, pay salaries/give raises, contribute to retirement plans, donate to community organizations and school functions and many other things. For our economic prosperity to continue profit isn't just good, it is necessary. While people like to attribute certain benefits to socialism, that isn't inherently true either. It benefits a company for its employees to have health insurance, retirement security, paid leave and a wage commensurate with a position's value to the company. No one, not even the capitalist, suggests that the US should have a completely unregulated workplace or market and everyone sees the inherent value in safety standards. Businesses and companies may have gotten away with a lot during the sweat shop days, but it wouldn't work for long today. The only ones that I can imagine trying that in the US today are those places that employ immigrant labor almost exclusively and many of those people are used to that and worse.

While I can appreciate the POV that corporations can do evil things, that does not mean all corporations or large companies are evil. We can bemoan the plight of the poorly paid worker, but I never expected to be paid well when I had no skills of value to offer the job market. That is their situation, not the evil company trying to keep them down.

Back to China. Most people in the US who would be considered left leaning Democrats are not truly "radical leftists." The true radical leftist may have some views in common with Democrats on the left, but the presentation of those views are different and the willingness to insist on compliance is different. I don't have any personal knowledge or statistics on the matter, but it seems to me that those who are truly radical leftists in America today are quite young. They might actually align philosophically with Castro or Mao, but they are way too young to remember what life was like in Cuba and China during the periods of their leadership. I do not see progressive Democrats as radical leftists.

I do agree with you to an extent.

Let's use the nation's largest employer that is not the military as an example Walmart.

Walmarts business model kills mom and pop stores that offer full time employment in exchange for part-time employees. Over fifty percent of Sam's and Walmarts employees are part time. I really don't think going over it is truly necessary it has been gone over numerous times. If someone doesn't get how Walmart is the devil you never will.

The top five executives at Walmart last year pulled down a cool 68.73 million last year. The highest paid non management job at Walmart bring in a cool 28k working in the auto shop full time. The CEO made more than that in a couple minutes with a pay of 23.6 million bucks.

So what is that reward really for not paying a living wage? Part time so you don't have to offer any benefits? I get is is because they were profitable but we all know why. The reason why is the working poor class that they helped create is over half the employees that we Americans have to give them government assistance to survive.

We have to get to a point where we as a nation don't reward executives and shareholders for forking the working class. That is exactly what is going on here.

We can break down just about any industry it all looks the same on some level.

 

[CoolBrees]

So I was going to start a new thread but it fits so nicely with the previous post by friend of squirrel. From the investigators at Reuter’s-

On eve of bankruptcy, U.S. firms shower execs with bonuses

Nearly a third of more than 40 large companies seeking U.S. bankruptcy protection during the coronavirus pandemic awarded bonuses to executives within a month of filing their cases, according to a Reuters analysis of securities filings and court records.

www.reuters.com

Covid sinking your proverbial ship? Don’t worry! The company is going to financially take care of you for working during these tough times.....As long as you are an executive, I mean. If you “work” for a living, well, you better get to grabbin’ them bootstraps. Honestly, you really should have been pulling harder on them for a while now, becoming a well compensated executive, instead of working the register at Penny’s to pay the light bill. Your fault really.

 

[The moose]

So I was going to start a new thread but it fits so nicely with the previous post by friend of squirrel. From the investigators at Reuter’s-

On eve of bankruptcy, U.S. firms shower execs with bonuses

Nearly a third of more than 40 large companies seeking U.S. bankruptcy protection during the coronavirus pandemic awarded bonuses to executives within a month of filing their cases, according to a Reuters analysis of securities filings and court records.

www.reuters.com

Covid sinking your proverbial ship? Don’t worry! The company is going to financially take care of you for working during these tough times.....As long as you are an executive, I mean. If you “work” for a living, well, you better get to grabbin’ them bootstraps. Honestly, you really should have been pulling harder on them for a while now, becoming a well compensated executive, instead of working the register at Penny’s to pay the light bill. Your fault really.

Not shocking in the least. Boot straps forking boot straps!

Here is my favorite. The ppp loans for rock bands and so forth. So if the eagles can't your this summer are the eagles gonna go out of forking business? If pearl jam takes a summer off they will never play again?

I get they have crew that should just file for unemployment and not take loans from small businesses.

Eagles, Pearl Jam, Guns N' Roses Among Groups Receiving PPP Loans for Postponed Tours

Several major music acts were granted federal loans as part of the government's CARES act, recently published data shows.

www.rollingstone.com

I think we have completely sidetracked the China thing.

 

[Richard]

I think we have completely sidetracked the China thing.

True. Several of the side issues could make good threads on their own.

China represents a clear threat to the US, but our leadership in both parties have shown little understanding in how to deal with them. Most critically, the current administration has proven ill-equipped to handle the challenges presented by China. Take away all of the other missteps and failures of the Trump administration and its horrid record on foreign policy matters should be enough to convince voters that a change in leadership is warranted. The Trump presidency has created a gaping hole in world leadership that our adversaries are stepping into without opposition. It borders on criminal negligence in my view.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This has evolved a bit into a more broad discussion about the limits of capitalism instead of about China. Not sure if the OP wants that or if he'd prefer it go back to the original topic.

Obviously China is a foreign country with their own set of national interests that are different from our own - like every other country. The challenge with China of course, is their values are a bit different than our own. I'm not a China expert by any stretch, but they place an emphasis on security, law and order over freedom. They also have a much more closed system, making it harder to trust their intentions. So, how much should we care about that? It's difficult to say... we've started moving away from caring about what foreign nations do to their own citizens, or human rights violations - or rather, I would say we've lost our appetite from trying to prevent human rights abuses in foreign countries. So that leaves, how much do we think we can cooperate with China in a global market, and how much do we think we should compete against China and possibly try to contain them?

I think the simplest tact to take would be to build up stronger trade partnerships with other East Asian countries, for a couple of reasons. First, it will help us diversify our supply lines so we aren't dependent on any one country -- I believe the TPP was supposed to do that. Second, this will help those countries most directly threatened by China by strengthening their economy so they can better defend themselves without us needing to keep troops there.

As far as the broader discussion -- capitalism has been the economic system that has generated the most wealth out of any other economic system to date. However, it is also an amoral system, and does not care if people get health care or a living wage, etc. Those are by products. The biggest challenge is that a company/corporation is incentivized to pay its workers as little as possible to maximize profits. The only way to counter that is to ensure the workers have enough power to demand more. The irony of an increasingly productive work force is that it actually lowers the bargaining power of an individual worker, since a single worker can do more, but the number of workers does not increase, a company can pit one worker against another for the same job since they now need less workers.

 

[Richard]

I think the broader discussion on capitalism should be its own thread so this one can stay focused on China. There is a lot I would respond to in that last paragraph.

The America First foreign policy championed by Trump was doomed from the start. It was a campaign slogan without legs or an understanding of the ramifications of isolationism in a global economy. It is a shoot from the hip strategy that only an extreme narcissist could believe would work, since the plan relies on putting out fires as they crop up instead of a logical, well considered course of action. Since so many of our corporations had been doing business with China, each misstep along the way for Trump has damaged American companies and created a more adversarial relationship with China. His belief that he alone could negotiate a positive trade deal with China only served to weaken our deals with them and left American businesses and consumers holding the bag. Trump has proven himself inept in dealing with China economically at every turn.

Globally -- and this predates Trump -- we have allowed China to gain footholds in Africa, South America and the Middle East and have forced our longterm allies into positions to where China offers a more sensible option for them. The US needs leadership that understands the global economic dynamic and how that affects international relationships. Your statement about stronger trade partnerships is right on target. Under Trump, the US has weakened its trade relationships with longstanding partners. That lessens our position globally and in my view, hurts our national security. Meanwhile, China is strengthening its position with emerging economies around the world. The negligence of our national leadership to not only allow this, but to actively create a negative position for the US globally, is infuriating to me.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think the broader discussion on capitalism should be its own thread so this one can stay focused on China. There is a lot I would respond to in that last paragraph.

The America First foreign policy championed by Trump was doomed from the start. It was a campaign slogan without legs or an understanding of the ramifications of isolationism in a global economy. It is a shoot from the hip strategy that only an extreme narcissist could believe would work, since the plan relies on putting out fires as they crop up instead of a logical, well considered course of action. Since so many of our corporations had been doing business with China, each misstep along the way for Trump has damaged American companies and created a more adversarial relationship with China. His belief that he alone could negotiate a positive trade deal with China only served to weaken our deals with them and left American businesses and consumers holding the bag. Trump has proven himself inept in dealing with China economically at every turn.

Globally -- and this predates Trump -- we have allowed China to gain footholds in Africa, South America and the Middle East and have forced our longterm allies into positions to where China offers a more sensible option for them. The US needs leadership that understands the global economic dynamic and how that affects international relationships. Your statement about stronger trade partnerships is right on target. Under Trump, the US has weakened its trade relationships with longstanding partners. That lessens our position globally and in my view, hurts our national security. Meanwhile, China is strengthening its position with emerging economies around the world. The negligence of our national leadership to not only allow this, but to actively create a negative position for the US globally, is infuriating to me.

I pretty much agree with this. I think Trump isn't completely wrong in focusing on China and it's problems, but I believe he's taken exactly the wrong approach to addressing it, leaving us in a weaker position.

My background is in international politics, and I'm philosophically a multi-lateralist and believe very much in global alliances and partnerships. It's a more efficient regime, economically and politically. This doesn't mean giving up sovereignty or anything like that which seems to be the sentiment from Trump and his supporters. I also fundamentally believe in creating win-win scenarios, and that trade is not a zero sum game. It's basic macro-economics.

The sense I get from Trump is that he believes in bi-lateral or unilateral negotiations and he seems to couch things in win-lose scenarios. Ie, if another country is winning, that must mean we are losing. His protectionism is a high cost strategy, that can lead to benefits that would be more efficiently realized in a multi-lateral partnership with more willing and honest partners.

 

[MT15]

UTJ, I’m in the middle of reading Mary Trump’s book and she addresses exactly that. Fred Trump saw the world that way, winners and losers, and if you didn’t win, you’re a loser. And it was drilled into little Donny from a young age. Donald takes it farther than even Fred did, though, because he believes a winner has to humiliate the loser. It’s the worst possible person to try to do anything with international relations.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[efil4]

Soooooooo now Houston will get Federal police???

these next 3 months will be interesting regarding gamesmanship from both sides.

I would hope that most trade partners, globally, are doing what many state-side are doing, and biding their time til 11/3/2020. ( but actively pursuing plan B in the event that Trump is re-elected )