251–260 of 260 posts
They should sell more knockoffs of popular products ;) Has there been any research into the truthfulness of the Chinese released growth numbers in the past? What’s to prevent them from inflating or artificially deflating them to serve some other purpose?
No one will like the answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've needed someone to push back against China for some time now. I just wish it had been in consultation with our allies instead of flipping the middle finger to all of them at the same time.
Everyone is scared of China, so getting our allies to work in concert wouldn't happen, that's why we need a fool. Once everyone realizes that China isn't a tiger, it's easier to get our allies on board. Western businesses have also wised up, realizing that partnering in China just means that you are forced to give away your IP. China is reliant on western countries partnering and giving away the IP for a shot at the…
Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump has complained about it publicly and is working to withdraw us while the Democrats spin it as Trump trying to withdraw from a 200-year old treaty - we should fix it instead (but we also tried that once and failed in 2016). I haven't followed it closely but it is a political issue, albeit a minor one that neither side for whatever reason wants to escalate into a major talking point. (Not a Trump supporter but ma…
It's amuzing how people feel forced to add the "I didn't vote for Trump" when defending his actions that they like. Lest someone think they're monsters. The reality is that business-wise he's actually working hard for America's economy, addressing structural nonsense like the mail post treaty. Why can't that be simply something you support, regardless of who you voted for. Why is it implied that the other party decid…
"The reality is that business-wise he's actually working hard for America's economy, addressing structural nonsense like the mail post treaty." is a statement that a majority of the people in the U.S would disagree with.
If you want to make your comment unbiased to one political party or the other, then you should remove that sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amuzing how people feel forced to add the "I didn't vote for Trump" when defending his actions that they like. Lest someone think they're monsters. The reality is that business-wise he's actually working hard for America's economy, addressing structural nonsense like the mail post treaty. Why can't that be simply something you support, regardless of who you voted for. Why is it implied that the other party decid…
Your first sentence was alright. Afterwards you injected a political opinion into your comment. "The reality is that business-wise he's actually working hard for America's economy, addressing structural nonsense like the mail post treaty." is a statement that a majority of the people in the U.S would disagree with. If you want to make your comment unbiased to one political party or the other, then you should remove t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What happens is that, because of untruthful reporting in US media, people in US does not know or understand what's going on in China. So, in your view: 1. what's the real story about what's going on in China that's being missed in "untruthful" articles like this, and 2. who's reporting that story "truthfully"?
I also would like to hear answers to these questions, but I suspect OP is another ethno-nationalist that perceives grievance against them for any and all actions. The number one take away I have from interactions with all too many Chinese nationals, unfortunately.
It might be more subtle than that. I know some Chinese nationals who report that their culture is to defend the in-group against criticisms in front of an out-group even if they themselves think the criticisms are true. To not do so is a kind of betrayal. This applies to groups as small as a family up to the whole country.
For instance, that cultural attitude were at least part of the fuel for this controversy: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-40013486
It does make it difficult to have open conversations about many topics until you're pretty close.
Much like the now disgraced/debunked Judith Miller article helped garner massive support for Bush's Iraq war, this article is meant to support Trump's anti-China rhetoric and trade war. We're supposed to conclude that Trump's tariffs have dealt a serious blow to China's economy, and thus to suppress our disgust with the policy, since it will not take much more time for China to beg for respite. It should be obvious b…
Maybe try finding examples for your conspiracy theories that aren’t old enough to have graduate high school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China builds useless buildings/cities because it raises the GDP and because it's often the only viable way to raise funds for local governments. The Chinese people invest in useless buildings because it is often the only viable way to invest your savings. Some of the useless buildings built for buildings sake will potentially be filled as people move from rural areas, but a lot won't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=…
The American equivalent is useless military hardware, including sometimes hardware the Pentagon says it doesn't even need. Both approaches are wasteful but which is more so is debatable. Our military Keynesianism throws off R&D dividends that apply to civilian use cases, but people could live in those cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your first sentence was alright. Afterwards you injected a political opinion into your comment. "The reality is that business-wise he's actually working hard for America's economy, addressing structural nonsense like the mail post treaty." is a statement that a majority of the people in the U.S would disagree with. If you want to make your comment unbiased to one political party or the other, then you should remove t…
Your opinion is unnecessarily spoiling this discussion.
Your comment was framed as "why can't people freely talk about which politician they support", which is a fairly neutral statement. But, afterwards, you proceeded to say that Trump has been beneficial for the U.S, which is a partisan statement (that most people in the U.S disagree with as per a variety of polls), and furthermore, you claimed that a vast majority of the people in the U.S would support Trump if it were not for their bias against Trump/conservatives, which is an incredibly subjective and partisan statement (and also plain wrong - because many people just dislike Trump's policies).
I mean, just look at this sentence:
>Why is it implied that the other party decides whether a position is right or wrong by simply choosing the opposite of what a politician they hate chooses?
You claim that people who don't support Trump's policies do so solely because they dislike Trump, instead of considering the fact that many people just dislike Trump's policies because they are just intrinsically bad.