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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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:  :roll:

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

+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.[/quote]

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

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics