China Retaliates Against the U.S. With Its Own Higher Tariffs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not PP. You may not be the real world because China is a leader in web 2.0 technologies, battery tech etc. China sells more electric cars in one month than what we do in 2 years. So wake up and work your ass off because just bleating " we are exceptional" and resting on other people's past accomplishments doesn't guarantee a future.

Leader in Web 2.0? LMAO. China has *ONE* dominant social network, WeChat, which essentially became popular because the Chinese government gave it the stamp of approval, leveraging it for mass content monitoring and censorship, and actively worked against the popularity of Google, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Chinese people don't even have access to Youtube. Anyone making the assertion that China is a leader in web 2.0 is someone who is pursuing a side gig as a comedian, you better have a punchline ready after setting that one up.

Yes, China sells many many electrical cars, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim that they are the leader in battery tech. Battery technology is mostly about chemistry, and US/Japan/EU has a clear lead on battery chemistry, followed by South Korea, then Taiwan, and after that, China. Most of the electric cars sold by China are pretty crappy. They are popular not because they are good vehicles, but because all of the major cities severely limit the number of new license plates given out, and allow electric vehicles to jump the line. Also, electrical vehicles have far fewer driving-day restrictions in the cities. Granted the US gives tax credits to early buyers of electrical cars, and sometimes HOV benefits, but this is a few orders of magnitude less than the amount of support for electric vehicles that China as given. Again, China is not a leader in this because they are good at it, but because the Chinese government has mandated it so for their internal market.

Minimizing the competitor's accomplishments and gloating about our accomplishments IS DELUSIONAL. China is the largest market for pretty much anything. they sell 28 million cars and we sell 16 million. China is the largest market for GM, Boeing, Caterpillar etc. China is the leader in solar and wind energy. China and India are competing in the race for largest solar farm and they change the title between themselves every few months. We are not in the race at all. China has web platform and AI platforms that is already deployed. We are doing everything piecemeal and there is no co-ordinated vision.

Everyone starts by making crappy and they improvise and get better. If we don't make at all, then we don't get any better. It doesn't matter how china became the leader, the fact is that they are the leader in electric cars, high speed rail, solar and wind power. You can't wish away China's accomplishments, especially with oil companies stopping any progress in USA while they get subsidy.

LOL, I note that you've completely ignored the Web 2.0 argument. Yea China is a large market, no one is arguing against that, nor are we discounting the importance of China as a market. It's simply foolish to claim that China is the leader on Web 2.0. Also I have idea what you mean by "China has web platform". The US lets the private sector to figure out what the wants and needs of the people are. This is the best way for vision to be established and thrive. History has shown that central planning is inefficient. For all their AI prowess, what is China doing with that AI technology? They are using it to suppress the freedom of the people. In that context, how does AI help the Chinese people?

You spout off all these things and it's just a bunch of mis-informed bits of information that you likely plucked from things you heard in passing. For example, China is *NOT* a leader in high speed rail - they may have installed a lot of high speed rail systems but abandoned their domestically produced train program and now imports all of their high speed trains. China is as much a leader in high speed rail as they are a leader in passenger airliners - they buy a lot of both, just not from domestic sources.

Again, you are just delusional. China has a thriving private sector and you are clueless. Chinese companies are controlled by the government, yes, but US took over banks,insurance companies, Auto companies in 2009. How is that any different? We are capitalistic in name only, until the government decides to save private companies. China is socialistic in name only as private sectors thrive(Alibaba, Vivo, Oppo, Huawei, dozen auto companies etc etc) but ofcourse government can take over anytime they want, just like the US.

China doesn't own Alibaba as US doesn't own Amazon. China practices pseudo communism, they have political power without democracy. We supposedly have democracy but the loser of election by 3 million votes is president. We are pseudo democratic that way. How useful is democracy when the peoples votes mean nothing because the rich control the government and lobby to make rules they want? A typical American has really not much of a say if he loses health coverage or wants to have better education for his/her kids. How is that democratic?

You are the mis-informed who can't think deeper. You just believe the political talking points. Like I said, America has freedom to own guns that kil themselves, their family or commit mass murder. We do have freedom to be addicted by opioids pushed by powerful corporations. We dont have freedom to send our kids to good schools or have easy and free access to universal healthcare. We ofcourse don't have any freedom to fight against the rich and corporations for our own benefit. How is it any different. Our freedom is a self propagated myth. The rich have the freedom to do what they want, the rest of us have limited freedom to harm ourselves but otherwise we just do what the rich, corporations and political class ALLOW US to do. THINK DEEP, IF YOU CAN.

+1 - One of the more insightful posts I've seen in awhile on this forum. Reminds me of what the discussions used to be like before all the trolls and hateful comments took over. Can we get back to more of this? I may not agree with all of this (but most of it), but it does educate and provokes thoughtful conversations.

Insightful? How ironic. The PP obviously just rehashes things he/she has heard over the news or talked about by others, with no depth, no substance, and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the things being talked about. First his comment about Web 2.0, and when that assertion was debunked, he started talking about things like the bullet train. And now that the bullet train claim is debunked is is moving on to other topics like Alibaba. What exactly do you find insightful?

The US regulates banks, but it does not own them. To equate the US regulation of banks to the outright ownership of the banking system in China by the central government is simply illogical and wrong. The private sector of China thrives only for those companies that has been selected by the central government to succeed. Jack Ma of Alibaba only recently came out as being a member of the communist party, putting to rest the long term suspicion that he is controlled by the central government and therefore owes much of his success to the communist party. You may think Alibaba is a success but this level of government nepotism for a private company has caused it to be completely noncompetitive outside of China. Given your ignorance on the topic, I doubt you are aware that several years ago when Alibaba first made its IPO, there was talk that Alibaba would come to the US market and essentially kick Amazon to the side. They claimed that Alibaba has the unique advantage of having established relationship with suppliers, and has demonstrated abilities with operating large ecommerce platforms like Taobao, and has a ready-made payment solution called Alipay. But as history has shown, Alibaba's Aliexpress has been relegated to the sidelines of the US market, essentially unable to make any meaningful in-roads to the US market. Except for some sub segment of bargain hunters and small time resellers, no one in the US uses Aliexpress for anything. On the other hand, Amazon has expanded its reach into Chinese suppliers in a dramatic fashion, being exceptionally successful with their "World Store" initiative. Substantially, any established and mature manufacturer in China currently has "selling on Amazon around the world" a part of their core operating strategy. Amazon has beat Alibaba in its own game of supplier relationships, and it has done so by offering value to suppliers, not by artificially eliminating competitors through government coercion. Therefore, in the ensuing 5 years since Alibaba's IPO, even though Alibaba's near 100% increase in stock price may seem to be good performance, but it pales in comparison to Amazon's 500% rise in the same time. Alibaba lost to Amazon even though it had the backing of the Chinese central government.

Insightful. LAMO

The PP said US took over banks, Insurance companies and auto companies IN 2009, which is true. He/she didnt say the government OWNS ALL THE BANKS ALL THE TIME. He made that reference to make a point that US is not truly and fully capitalistic and hence we are pseudo capitalistic.

No one claimed that the US is a pure capitalistic economy. All economies of the world consists of a combination of free market capitalism and centrally planned social programs. It's a spectrum where some countries have more of the free market component like the US, while other countries have more of the central planned component, like Venezuela. Then you have countries in the middle like those in the EU, and China. That said, the US is a substantially capitalistic country where the default position is for capitalism and social programs are implemented only when the people decide that it is necessary. This is as opposed to a country founded on socialism where the default position is a centrally planned effort.

But didn't you "educate" us all that China is socialist because the government owns everything and "selects" companies to succeed and US is capitalist because government doesn't own "private companies" but intrudes when it wants and "selects" which companies survive(MS,BoA,citi etc) and which don't(lehman bros among other banks). We simpletons are confused. Will you, the all knowing, please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Americans care about is buying cheap crap and shoving Chick Fil A down their throats. We are screwed!

Why aren’t Democrats embracing a reduction of that cheap Chinese crap dumped on our shores?

Because those of us who live in the real world know that there is no quick, easy and cheap alternative. It's not like US textile mills that have been dead for thirty years are suddenly going to reanimate and produce at a competitive price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Americans care about is buying cheap crap and shoving Chick Fil A down their throats. We are screwed!

Why aren’t Democrats embracing a reduction of that cheap Chinese crap dumped on our shores?

Because those of us who live in the real world know that there is no quick, easy and cheap alternative. It's not like US textile mills that have been dead for thirty years are suddenly going to reanimate and produce at a competitive price.

Again:
Why aren't you "environmentalists" embracing a reduction of that cheap Chinese crap dumped on our shores?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Americans care about is buying cheap crap and shoving Chick Fil A down their throats. We are screwed!

Why aren’t Democrats embracing a reduction of that cheap Chinese crap dumped on our shores?

Because those of us who live in the real world know that there is no quick, easy and cheap alternative. It's not like US textile mills that have been dead for thirty years are suddenly going to reanimate and produce at a competitive price.

Again:
Why aren't you "environmentalists" embracing a reduction of that cheap Chinese crap dumped on our shores?

Because we don't live in a binary world, where reducing one thing automatically triggers and equivalent.

And by the way, China is leading the world in development of alternative energy sources for its power grid. It will take a while, but they're miles ahead of the US.

[Anonymous]

A real environmentalist wants to reduce the production and transportation of waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A real environmentalist wants to reduce the production and transportation of waste.

So all this is a Republican plot to save the planet? Got it.

[Anonymous]

China is poised very well on near future technologies. That's why Navarro is after them. A trade war will set them back pretty far though. That's the calculus of the trade hawks.

If China's smart it will go back to flattering Trump, open up the financial sector (exporting risk), and strengthen IP enforcement. That will preserve their gains and allow them to dominate the coming economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Americans care about is buying cheap crap and shoving Chick Fil A down their throats. We are screwed!

Why aren’t Democrats embracing a reduction of that cheap Chinese crap dumped on our shores?

Because those of us who live in the real world know that there is no quick, easy and cheap alternative. It's not like US textile mills that have been dead for thirty years are suddenly going to reanimate and produce at a competitive price.

Again:
Why aren't you "environmentalists" embracing a reduction of that cheap Chinese crap dumped on our shores?

Because we don't live in a binary world, where reducing one thing automatically triggers and equivalent.

And by the way, China is leading the world in development of alternative energy sources for its power grid. It will take a while, but they're miles ahead of the US.

+1 In per capita terms, the United States is the greatest polluter in the world. Shifting manufacturing from China to another Asian country isn't going to change that.

[Anonymous]

The United States may be feeling the pain of tariffs now, but they will hurt China in the longer term, said former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

“Tariffs might be an effective negotiating tool,” Blankfein said in a tweet Tuesday evening New York time. “Saying it hurts us misses the point. China relies more on trade and loses more.”

In a separate tweet Tuesday, Blankfein said tariffs may cause U.S. buyers to switch their purchases to local or non-Chinese companies. Although that will cause the American side to pay slightly more than they do now, he pointed out that as a result, Chinese companies will lose revenues.

“Not great but part of the process to assert pressure to level the playing field,” he said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/15/goldman-sachs-ex-ceo-blankfein-tariffs-may-hurt-us-china-loses-more.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one claimed that the US is a pure capitalistic economy. All economies of the world consists of a combination of free market capitalism and centrally planned social programs. It's a spectrum where some countries have more of the free market component like the US, while other countries have more of the central planned component, like Venezuela. Then you have countries in the middle like those in the EU, and China. That said, the US is a substantially capitalistic country where the default position is for capitalism and social programs are implemented only when the people decide that it is necessary. This is as opposed to a country founded on socialism where the default position is a centrally planned effort.

But didn't you "educate" us all that China is socialist because the government owns everything and "selects" companies to succeed and US is capitalist because government doesn't own "private companies" but intrudes when it wants and "selects" which companies survive(MS,BoA,citi etc) and which don't(lehman bros among other banks). We simpletons are confused. Will you, the all knowing, please explain.

No, I never said that. You can't fabricate things I didn't say. Go back and reread the thread if you are confused. It's not my job to explain to you if you have not done the basic reading needed to participate meaningfully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not PP. You may not be the real world because China is a leader in web 2.0 technologies, battery tech etc. China sells more electric cars in one month than what we do in 2 years. So wake up and work your ass off because just bleating " we are exceptional" and resting on other people's past accomplishments doesn't guarantee a future.

Leader in Web 2.0? LMAO. China has *ONE* dominant social network, WeChat, which essentially became popular because the Chinese government gave it the stamp of approval, leveraging it for mass content monitoring and censorship, and actively worked against the popularity of Google, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Chinese people don't even have access to Youtube. Anyone making the assertion that China is a leader in web 2.0 is someone who is pursuing a side gig as a comedian, you better have a punchline ready after setting that one up.

Yes, China sells many many electrical cars, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim that they are the leader in battery tech. Battery technology is mostly about chemistry, and US/Japan/EU has a clear lead on battery chemistry, followed by South Korea, then Taiwan, and after that, China. Most of the electric cars sold by China are pretty crappy. They are popular not because they are good vehicles, but because all of the major cities severely limit the number of new license plates given out, and allow electric vehicles to jump the line. Also, electrical vehicles have far fewer driving-day restrictions in the cities. Granted the US gives tax credits to early buyers of electrical cars, and sometimes HOV benefits, but this is a few orders of magnitude less than the amount of support for electric vehicles that China as given. Again, China is not a leader in this because they are good at it, but because the Chinese government has mandated it so for their internal market.

Minimizing the competitor's accomplishments and gloating about our accomplishments IS DELUSIONAL. China is the largest market for pretty much anything. they sell 28 million cars and we sell 16 million. China is the largest market for GM, Boeing, Caterpillar etc. China is the leader in solar and wind energy. China and India are competing in the race for largest solar farm and they change the title between themselves every few months. We are not in the race at all. China has web platform and AI platforms that is already deployed. We are doing everything piecemeal and there is no co-ordinated vision.

Everyone starts by making crappy and they improvise and get better. If we don't make at all, then we don't get any better. It doesn't matter how china became the leader, the fact is that they are the leader in electric cars, high speed rail, solar and wind power. You can't wish away China's accomplishments, especially with oil companies stopping any progress in USA while they get subsidy.

LOL, I note that you've completely ignored the Web 2.0 argument. Yea China is a large market, no one is arguing against that, nor are we discounting the importance of China as a market. It's simply foolish to claim that China is the leader on Web 2.0. Also I have idea what you mean by "China has web platform". The US lets the private sector to figure out what the wants and needs of the people are. This is the best way for vision to be established and thrive. History has shown that central planning is inefficient. For all their AI prowess, what is China doing with that AI technology? They are using it to suppress the freedom of the people. In that context, how does AI help the Chinese people?

You spout off all these things and it's just a bunch of mis-informed bits of information that you likely plucked from things you heard in passing. For example, China is *NOT* a leader in high speed rail - they may have installed a lot of high speed rail systems but abandoned their domestically produced train program and now imports all of their high speed trains. China is as much a leader in high speed rail as they are a leader in passenger airliners - they buy a lot of both, just not from domestic sources.

Again, you are just delusional. China has a thriving private sector and you are clueless. Chinese companies are controlled by the government, yes, but US took over banks,insurance companies, Auto companies in 2009. How is that any different? We are capitalistic in name only, until the government decides to save private companies. China is socialistic in name only as private sectors thrive(Alibaba, Vivo, Oppo, Huawei, dozen auto companies etc etc) but ofcourse government can take over anytime they want, just like the US.

China doesn't own Alibaba as US doesn't own Amazon. China practices pseudo communism, they have political power without democracy. We supposedly have democracy but the loser of election by 3 million votes is president. We are pseudo democratic that way. How useful is democracy when the peoples votes mean nothing because the rich control the government and lobby to make rules they want? A typical American has really not much of a say if he loses health coverage or wants to have better education for his/her kids. How is that democratic?

You are the mis-informed who can't think deeper. You just believe the political talking points. Like I said, America has freedom to own guns that kil themselves, their family or commit mass murder. We do have freedom to be addicted by opioids pushed by powerful corporations. We dont have freedom to send our kids to good schools or have easy and free access to universal healthcare. We ofcourse don't have any freedom to fight against the rich and corporations for our own benefit. How is it any different. Our freedom is a self propagated myth. The rich have the freedom to do what they want, the rest of us have limited freedom to harm ourselves but otherwise we just do what the rich, corporations and political class ALLOW US to do. THINK DEEP, IF YOU CAN.

+1 - One of the more insightful posts I've seen in awhile on this forum. Reminds me of what the discussions used to be like before all the trolls and hateful comments took over. Can we get back to more of this? I may not agree with all of this (but most of it), but it does educate and provokes thoughtful conversations.

Insightful? How ironic. The PP obviously just rehashes things he/she has heard over the news or talked about by others, with no depth, no substance, and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the things being talked about. First his comment about Web 2.0, and when that assertion was debunked, he started talking about things like the bullet train. And now that the bullet train claim is debunked is is moving on to other topics like Alibaba. What exactly do you find insightful?

The US regulates banks, but it does not own them. To equate the US regulation of banks to the outright ownership of the banking system in China by the central government is simply illogical and wrong. The private sector of China thrives only for those companies that has been selected by the central government to succeed. Jack Ma of Alibaba only recently came out as being a member of the communist party, putting to rest the long term suspicion that he is controlled by the central government and therefore owes much of his success to the communist party. You may think Alibaba is a success but this level of government nepotism for a private company has caused it to be completely noncompetitive outside of China. Given your ignorance on the topic, I doubt you are aware that several years ago when Alibaba first made its IPO, there was talk that Alibaba would come to the US market and essentially kick Amazon to the side. They claimed that Alibaba has the unique advantage of having established relationship with suppliers, and has demonstrated abilities with operating large ecommerce platforms like Taobao, and has a ready-made payment solution called Alipay. But as history has shown, Alibaba's Aliexpress has been relegated to the sidelines of the US market, essentially unable to make any meaningful in-roads to the US market. Except for some sub segment of bargain hunters and small time resellers, no one in the US uses Aliexpress for anything. On the other hand, Amazon has expanded its reach into Chinese suppliers in a dramatic fashion, being exceptionally successful with their "World Store" initiative. Substantially, any established and mature manufacturer in China currently has "selling on Amazon around the world" a part of their core operating strategy. Amazon has beat Alibaba in its own game of supplier relationships, and it has done so by offering value to suppliers, not by artificially eliminating competitors through government coercion. Therefore, in the ensuing 5 years since Alibaba's IPO, even though Alibaba's near 100% increase in stock price may seem to be good performance, but it pales in comparison to Amazon's 500% rise in the same time. Alibaba lost to Amazon even though it had the backing of the Chinese central government.

Insightful. LAMO

Not PP. Launching adhominem attacks on anyone instead of discussing the issue shows you in poor light. You ignored every other issue and picked on a tangential Amazon vs Alibaba issue is a red herring logical fallacy. You never debunked any of the issue but just stated that you've debunked it, which is called begging the question fallacy.

And then there is the strawman attack fallacy when you attacked a position the PP never stated, all he said was US took over private companies and that is Pseudo capitalism.

There are many more logical fallacies. Please go through the link below and learn.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Um, no, you need to heed your own advice and study up on logical fallacies. It's not ad hominem to attack someone's position and question their knowledge level on a subject. This is yet again ironic since the PP called me "delusional", which actually is much closer to ad hominem. How is it a tangent to discuss Alibaba and Amazon when the PP brought up both of these companies in his post? He mentioned Alibaba not once but twice, and held it up as an example of a successful company in the China's "private sector". A discussion of Alibaba's success in comparison to Amazon therefore is useful to illustrate the PP's lack of any substantial knowledge on the issue, and is therefore not a strawman.

Go study what logical fallacies are. Maybe you can find them illustrated in a picture book.

We all agree, you are the know all but you don't know what you don't know. You are indeed the crown jewel of American education and capitalism. Bravo!

You keep throwing sayings like this around like it's somehow deeply meaningful. I do have to give props to my American education and the good fortune and success that capitalism has enabled in my life. Why don't you actually provide something of substance rather than just trying cast aspersions at me by calling me a "know all" in a derogatory context. Some may even call that an example of ad hominem. What are you going to do, post another "deep thoughts" phrase and a few more smiley faces?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's ironic for China to call for mutual trust and respect when they are guilty of intellectual property thefts, forced technology transfers, and anti-competitive behaviors that block foreign goods/services from being competitive in the Chinese market. Tell me, can you hail an Uber in China?

Mutual trust and respect my @ss. What they want is for the US to go back being complacent like we were under Obama, to stay quiet while being bent over a barrel by China.

Well, okay. But you're only right if this works. If it stops China from stealing our IP, undercutting us globally, etc.

And that's the rub. The big danger is that this enables China to more effectively undercut us internationally. Look at what happened with the 737max grounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not PP. You may not be the real world because China is a leader in web 2.0 technologies, battery tech etc. China sells more electric cars in one month than what we do in 2 years. So wake up and work your ass off because just bleating " we are exceptional" and resting on other people's past accomplishments doesn't guarantee a future.

Leader in Web 2.0? LMAO. China has *ONE* dominant social network, WeChat, which essentially became popular because the Chinese government gave it the stamp of approval, leveraging it for mass content monitoring and censorship, and actively worked against the popularity of Google, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Chinese people don't even have access to Youtube. Anyone making the assertion that China is a leader in web 2.0 is someone who is pursuing a side gig as a comedian, you better have a punchline ready after setting that one up.

Yes, China sells many many electrical cars, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim that they are the leader in battery tech. Battery technology is mostly about chemistry, and US/Japan/EU has a clear lead on battery chemistry, followed by South Korea, then Taiwan, and after that, China. Most of the electric cars sold by China are pretty crappy. They are popular not because they are good vehicles, but because all of the major cities severely limit the number of new license plates given out, and allow electric vehicles to jump the line. Also, electrical vehicles have far fewer driving-day restrictions in the cities. Granted the US gives tax credits to early buyers of electrical cars, and sometimes HOV benefits, but this is a few orders of magnitude less than the amount of support for electric vehicles that China as given. Again, China is not a leader in this because they are good at it, but because the Chinese government has mandated it so for their internal market.

Minimizing the competitor's accomplishments and gloating about our accomplishments IS DELUSIONAL. China is the largest market for pretty much anything. they sell 28 million cars and we sell 16 million. China is the largest market for GM, Boeing, Caterpillar etc. China is the leader in solar and wind energy. China and India are competing in the race for largest solar farm and they change the title between themselves every few months. We are not in the race at all. China has web platform and AI platforms that is already deployed. We are doing everything piecemeal and there is no co-ordinated vision.

Everyone starts by making crappy and they improvise and get better. If we don't make at all, then we don't get any better. It doesn't matter how china became the leader, the fact is that they are the leader in electric cars, high speed rail, solar and wind power. You can't wish away China's accomplishments, especially with oil companies stopping any progress in USA while they get subsidy.

LOL, I note that you've completely ignored the Web 2.0 argument. Yea China is a large market, no one is arguing against that, nor are we discounting the importance of China as a market. It's simply foolish to claim that China is the leader on Web 2.0. Also I have idea what you mean by "China has web platform". The US lets the private sector to figure out what the wants and needs of the people are. This is the best way for vision to be established and thrive. History has shown that central planning is inefficient. For all their AI prowess, what is China doing with that AI technology? They are using it to suppress the freedom of the people. In that context, how does AI help the Chinese people?

You spout off all these things and it's just a bunch of mis-informed bits of information that you likely plucked from things you heard in passing. For example, China is *NOT* a leader in high speed rail - they may have installed a lot of high speed rail systems but abandoned their domestically produced train program and now imports all of their high speed trains. China is as much a leader in high speed rail as they are a leader in passenger airliners - they buy a lot of both, just not from domestic sources.

Again, you are just delusional. China has a thriving private sector and you are clueless. Chinese companies are controlled by the government, yes, but US took over banks,insurance companies, Auto companies in 2009. How is that any different? We are capitalistic in name only, until the government decides to save private companies. China is socialistic in name only as private sectors thrive(Alibaba, Vivo, Oppo, Huawei, dozen auto companies etc etc) but ofcourse government can take over anytime they want, just like the US.

China doesn't own Alibaba as US doesn't own Amazon. China practices pseudo communism, they have political power without democracy. We supposedly have democracy but the loser of election by 3 million votes is president. We are pseudo democratic that way. How useful is democracy when the peoples votes mean nothing because the rich control the government and lobby to make rules they want? A typical American has really not much of a say if he loses health coverage or wants to have better education for his/her kids. How is that democratic?

You are the mis-informed who can't think deeper. You just believe the political talking points. Like I said, America has freedom to own guns that kil themselves, their family or commit mass murder. We do have freedom to be addicted by opioids pushed by powerful corporations. We dont have freedom to send our kids to good schools or have easy and free access to universal healthcare. We ofcourse don't have any freedom to fight against the rich and corporations for our own benefit. How is it any different. Our freedom is a self propagated myth. The rich have the freedom to do what they want, the rest of us have limited freedom to harm ourselves but otherwise we just do what the rich, corporations and political class ALLOW US to do. THINK DEEP, IF YOU CAN.

+1 - One of the more insightful posts I've seen in awhile on this forum. Reminds me of what the discussions used to be like before all the trolls and hateful comments took over. Can we get back to more of this? I may not agree with all of this (but most of it), but it does educate and provokes thoughtful conversations.

Insightful? How ironic. The PP obviously just rehashes things he/she has heard over the news or talked about by others, with no depth, no substance, and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the things being talked about. First his comment about Web 2.0, and when that assertion was debunked, he started talking about things like the bullet train. And now that the bullet train claim is debunked is is moving on to other topics like Alibaba. What exactly do you find insightful?

The US regulates banks, but it does not own them. To equate the US regulation of banks to the outright ownership of the banking system in China by the central government is simply illogical and wrong. The private sector of China thrives only for those companies that has been selected by the central government to succeed. Jack Ma of Alibaba only recently came out as being a member of the communist party, putting to rest the long term suspicion that he is controlled by the central government and therefore owes much of his success to the communist party. You may think Alibaba is a success but this level of government nepotism for a private company has caused it to be completely noncompetitive outside of China. Given your ignorance on the topic, I doubt you are aware that several years ago when Alibaba first made its IPO, there was talk that Alibaba would come to the US market and essentially kick Amazon to the side. They claimed that Alibaba has the unique advantage of having established relationship with suppliers, and has demonstrated abilities with operating large ecommerce platforms like Taobao, and has a ready-made payment solution called Alipay. But as history has shown, Alibaba's Aliexpress has been relegated to the sidelines of the US market, essentially unable to make any meaningful in-roads to the US market. Except for some sub segment of bargain hunters and small time resellers, no one in the US uses Aliexpress for anything. On the other hand, Amazon has expanded its reach into Chinese suppliers in a dramatic fashion, being exceptionally successful with their "World Store" initiative. Substantially, any established and mature manufacturer in China currently has "selling on Amazon around the world" a part of their core operating strategy. Amazon has beat Alibaba in its own game of supplier relationships, and it has done so by offering value to suppliers, not by artificially eliminating competitors through government coercion. Therefore, in the ensuing 5 years since Alibaba's IPO, even though Alibaba's near 100% increase in stock price may seem to be good performance, but it pales in comparison to Amazon's 500% rise in the same time. Alibaba lost to Amazon even though it had the backing of the Chinese central government.

Insightful. LAMO

Not PP. Launching adhominem attacks on anyone instead of discussing the issue shows you in poor light. You ignored every other issue and picked on a tangential Amazon vs Alibaba issue is a red herring logical fallacy. You never debunked any of the issue but just stated that you've debunked it, which is called begging the question fallacy.

And then there is the strawman attack fallacy when you attacked a position the PP never stated, all he said was US took over private companies and that is Pseudo capitalism.

There are many more logical fallacies. Please go through the link below and learn.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Um, no, you need to heed your own advice and study up on logical fallacies. It's not ad hominem to attack someone's position and question their knowledge level on a subject. This is yet again ironic since the PP called me "delusional", which actually is much closer to ad hominem. How is it a tangent to discuss Alibaba and Amazon when the PP brought up both of these companies in his post? He mentioned Alibaba not once but twice, and held it up as an example of a successful company in the China's "private sector". A discussion of Alibaba's success in comparison to Amazon therefore is useful to illustrate the PP's lack of any substantial knowledge on the issue, and is therefore not a strawman.

Go study what logical fallacies are. Maybe you can find them illustrated in a picture book.

We all agree, you are the know all but you don't know what you don't know. You are indeed the crown jewel of American education and capitalism. Bravo!

You keep throwing sayings like this around like it's somehow deeply meaningful. I do have to give props to my American education and the good fortune and success that capitalism has enabled in my life. Why don't you actually provide something of substance rather than just trying cast aspersions at me by calling me a "know all" in a derogatory context. Some may even call that an example of ad hominem. What are you going to do, post another "deep thoughts" phrase and a few more smiley faces?

Not PP. But I've been watching the thread. You do have a chip on your shoulder and you simply can't take any appreciation of another person or reasonable criticism of you. The PP did come with lot of good points and another PP called those points refreshing and deep. What is your problem? You are always on the attack without reading fully or even bothering to understand it objectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not PP. But I've been watching the thread. You do have a chip on your shoulder and you simply can't take any appreciation of another person or reasonable criticism of you. The PP did come with lot of good points and another PP called those points refreshing and deep. What is your problem? You are always on the attack without reading fully or even bothering to understand it objectively.

You are right that I am a bit sensitive to topics relating to trade/political disputes between China and US. This is because I've lived extensively in both countries and currently conducts trade between the two. I visit China often and have many contacts over there that I communicate with on a daily basis. So when I see people who obviously have no understanding of the facts, and no grasp of logic/reason, I want to share what I know and reasons why I feel the way that I do about these topics. I readily take criticism if it is valid - this is an anonymous forum so I can't look up my post history, but I've made posts in the past for the sole purpose of admitting that I was wrong about something and thanking a PP for sharing information that was new to me. That said, there has been nothing convincing about what the PP has shared in this thread with regards to his/her views on China that I haven't heard of from other similarly ill informed people who have a strong urge to share their ignorance with the world.

Lets get back to substance - what are some of these good points that you think the PP has made? Lets just grab one of these attempts:

"Like I said, America has freedom to own guns that kil themselves, their family or commit mass murder. We do have freedom to be addicted by opioids pushed by powerful corporations. We dont have freedom to send our kids to good schools or have easy and free access to universal healthcare. We ofcourse don't have any freedom to fight against the rich and corporations for our own benefit. How is it any different. Our freedom is a self propagated myth. The rich have the freedom to do what they want, the rest of us have limited freedom to harm ourselves but otherwise we just do what the rich, corporations and political class ALLOW US to do. "

This is so devoid of rationality that I didn't feel it needed a rebuttal when I first read it, but since some of you find it "insightful", "thought provoking", and "refreshing"...

First the PP is conflating two different concepts of freedom as is commonly used when discussing the role of man in organized society and his relationship with the government. The freedom for someone to act in their selfish interest so long as they are not infringing on the ability of others to do the same is a fundamental negative right. Other negative rights are exemplified by the freedom to own guns, or to commit suicide. The PP conflates these negative freedoms with positive freedoms, which are those that require the action of others to fulfill. For example, the freedom to send a kid to a good school obligates others to create a good school and allow the kid to enroll; the freedom to free access to healthcare obligates others to work to provide the healthcare and to subsidize the cost of it. Positive freedoms and negative freedoms are entirely different in concept and are not directly comparable yet the PP does exactly this.

Second, since the PP does not seem to understand the distinction between negative and positive freedoms, it's not surprising that he confuses the relative importance of the two classes of freedoms. In general, negative freedoms are regarded as fundamental, such as the natural right to life, liberty, and property. All liberal democracies identify and explicitly protect these basic negative freedoms in their national law, such as the US constitution. The recognition of negative freedoms as fundamental dates back to the Magna Carta and is included in various international law and conventions on human rights. Without negative rights, one can't possibly begin to talk about positive freedoms that the PP is advocating for. In fact, it is an on-going debate whether positive freedoms are even desirable since it obligates others to perform some action, and such action may infringe on other's fundamental negative freedoms. For the PP to call negative freedoms as "self propagated myth" is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the nature of rights.

Third, the PP clearly makes some false accusations of rights in the US. No one has the right to kill their family or commit mass murder. People in the US have the right to fight against the rich and corporations for our own benefit, both in a negative sense and a positive sense: they are not prevented by anyone to file lawsuits against rich people or corporations, and they can direct the government to work on their behalf to legislate taxes, oversight, and regulations against rich people and corporations.

So in summary, the PP clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of what freedoms are, and makes some flatly false statements. I didn't believe that this warranted a rebuttal, or even acknowledgement. Yet somehow, for some segment of DCUM readers, PP is regarded as "insightful". Look, I've now gone through and debunked four claims made by the PP, first with regards to Web 2.0, then high speed rail, then the success of Chinese companies like Alibaba (especially in contrast to American competitors), and now the nature of freedoms. On each and every single one of these, my challenge to the PP's glaring display of ignorance went unanswered. So unless some semblance of an effort is made to substantively counter what I've written, I'll regard this as a lost cause and won't engage further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not PP. But I've been watching the thread. You do have a chip on your shoulder and you simply can't take any appreciation of another person or reasonable criticism of you. The PP did come with lot of good points and another PP called those points refreshing and deep. What is your problem? You are always on the attack without reading fully or even bothering to understand it objectively.

You are right that I am a bit sensitive to topics relating to trade/political disputes between China and US. This is because I've lived extensively in both countries and currently conducts trade between the two. I visit China often and have many contacts over there that I communicate with on a daily basis. So when I see people who obviously have no understanding of the facts, and no grasp of logic/reason, I want to share what I know and reasons why I feel the way that I do about these topics. I readily take criticism if it is valid - this is an anonymous forum so I can't look up my post history, but I've made posts in the past for the sole purpose of admitting that I was wrong about something and thanking a PP for sharing information that was new to me. That said, there has been nothing convincing about what the PP has shared in this thread with regards to his/her views on China that I haven't heard of from other similarly ill informed people who have a strong urge to share their ignorance with the world.

Lets get back to substance - what are some of these good points that you think the PP has made? Lets just grab one of these attempts:

"Like I said, America has freedom to own guns that kil themselves, their family or commit mass murder. We do have freedom to be addicted by opioids pushed by powerful corporations. We dont have freedom to send our kids to good schools or have easy and free access to universal healthcare. We ofcourse don't have any freedom to fight against the rich and corporations for our own benefit. How is it any different. Our freedom is a self propagated myth. The rich have the freedom to do what they want, the rest of us have limited freedom to harm ourselves but otherwise we just do what the rich, corporations and political class ALLOW US to do. "

This is so devoid of rationality that I didn't feel it needed a rebuttal when I first read it, but since some of you find it "insightful", "thought provoking", and "refreshing"...

First the PP is conflating two different concepts of freedom as is commonly used when discussing the role of man in organized society and his relationship with the government. The freedom for someone to act in their selfish interest so long as they are not infringing on the ability of others to do the same is a fundamental negative right. Other negative rights are exemplified by the freedom to own guns, or to commit suicide. The PP conflates these negative freedoms with positive freedoms, which are those that require the action of others to fulfill. For example, the freedom to send a kid to a good school obligates others to create a good school and allow the kid to enroll; the freedom to free access to healthcare obligates others to work to provide the healthcare and to subsidize the cost of it. Positive freedoms and negative freedoms are entirely different in concept and are not directly comparable yet the PP does exactly this.

Second, since the PP does not seem to understand the distinction between negative and positive freedoms, it's not surprising that he confuses the relative importance of the two classes of freedoms. In general, negative freedoms are regarded as fundamental, such as the natural right to life, liberty, and property. All liberal democracies identify and explicitly protect these basic negative freedoms in their national law, such as the US constitution. The recognition of negative freedoms as fundamental dates back to the Magna Carta and is included in various international law and conventions on human rights. Without negative rights, one can't possibly begin to talk about positive freedoms that the PP is advocating for. In fact, it is an on-going debate whether positive freedoms are even desirable since it obligates others to perform some action, and such action may infringe on other's fundamental negative freedoms. For the PP to call negative freedoms as "self propagated myth" is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the nature of rights.

Third, the PP clearly makes some false accusations of rights in the US. No one has the right to kill their family or commit mass murder. People in the US have the right to fight against the rich and corporations for our own benefit, both in a negative sense and a positive sense: they are not prevented by anyone to file lawsuits against rich people or corporations, and they can direct the government to work on their behalf to legislate taxes, oversight, and regulations against rich people and corporations.

So in summary, the PP clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of what freedoms are, and makes some flatly false statements. I didn't believe that this warranted a rebuttal, or even acknowledgement. Yet somehow, for some segment of DCUM readers, PP is regarded as "insightful". Look, I've now gone through and debunked four claims made by the PP, first with regards to Web 2.0, then high speed rail, then the success of Chinese companies like Alibaba (especially in contrast to American competitors), and now the nature of freedoms. On each and every single one of these, my challenge to the PP's glaring display of ignorance went unanswered. So unless some semblance of an effort is made to substantively counter what I've written, I'll regard this as a lost cause and won't engage further.

Thank you for posting your first hand experiences and observations on this forum. We desperately need to hear your highly valuable insight.