EPTIs it another deadline for Evergrande bond payment?
The China Politics Thread - Page 36
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Manit0u
Poland17554 Posts
Is it another deadline for Evergrande bond payment? | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4374 Posts
The US would cut off China from Venezuela And China would then announce it is selling all of it’s trillion dollars worth of US treasury securities in one go.US inflation now is highest in 41 years but it would go far higher.China has got the USA by the balls economically. So basically the ccp would be oil starved. Unless there exists a pipeline from Iran to China, because transporting oil via land is immensely expensive, unless a pipeline is operation, and it could be bombed as well. Another factor to consider, is that China is a huge food importer, so several months into the war people would starve to death in China. China has been Russia’s biggest oil export market for several years.Luckily for China they can have any excess Europe suddenly does not want.Same with Russian grain.Wow, no wonder China has been so coy on the Ukraine situation. Western sanctions on Russia have succeeded in bringing China and Russia closer together whilst condemning western consumers and businesses to higher energy and food prices. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On August 08 2022 04:38 Mohdoo wrote: This is just gaslighting and whataboutism. Why should Taiwan be forced to join China against their will? I'm not asking what bad things have happened before. I am asking why Taiwan shouldn't have a choice. Why? Well, the last time certain states in the US decided to no longer be part of the US, a civil war was the result. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6261 Posts
On August 08 2022 18:54 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: And China would then announce it is selling all of it’s trillion dollars worth of US treasury securities in one go.US inflation now is highest in 41 years but it would go far higher.China has got the USA by the balls economically. China has been Russia’s biggest oil export market for several years.Luckily for China they can have any excess Europe suddenly does not want.Same with Russian grain.Wow, no wonder China has been so coy on the Ukraine situation. Western sanctions on Russia have succeeded in bringing China and Russia closer together whilst condemning western consumers and businesses to higher energy and food prices. Do you know how bond pricing works? Flooding the market will crash the price and China would receive pennies on the dollar for them. That hurts China as much as the US. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Djabanete
United States2786 Posts
On August 08 2022 22:08 JimmiC wrote: #falseequivalence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence#:~:text=False equivalence is an informal,"comparing apples and oranges." I’m mostly replying to gobbledygook, but JimmiC, you might mention why it’s a false equivalence, otherwise your post is pointless. I’m no Civil War scholar, so this is a chance for me to learn. According to thirty minutes on Wikipedia, President Lincoln did not recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate sovereign country, but neither did he launch a military attack on it in response to Southern secessions. Instead, he attempted to peacefully negotiate with individual state governors. He retained control of federal land where possible, such as Fort Sumter. Confederate forces then bombarded Fort Sumter and federal ships that were supplying it. I could see why China would be belligerent toward Taiwan if Taiwan were lobbing missiles at China, but that’s not the case. That being said, I don’t agree with the premise implied by many in this thread that if the United States has ever done anything bad, then it’s right for China to do it too. Even if history and modern moral sensibilities were to conclude that Lincoln was some kind of Attila the Hun who barbarically destroyed the Confederacy, that wouldn’t take away the right of Taiwan’s people to govern themselves. Likewise, the Native American genocide doesn’t excuse China’s violence toward Uyghurs, nor does America’s support of Taiwan excuse its role in Palestine’s occupation, etc. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17554 Posts
On August 09 2022 00:44 Djabanete wrote: I’m mostly replying to gobbledygook, but JimmiC, you might mention why it’s a false equivalence, otherwise your post is pointless. I’m no Civil War scholar, so this is a chance for me to learn. According to thirty minutes on Wikipedia, President Lincoln did not recognize the Confederacy as a legitimate sovereign country, but neither did he launch a military attack on it in response to Southern secessions. Instead, he attempted to peacefully negotiate with individual state governors. He retained control of federal land where possible, such as Fort Sumter. Confederate forces then bombarded Fort Sumter and federal ships that were supplying it. I could see why China would be belligerent toward Taiwan if Taiwan were lobbing missiles at China, but that’s not the case. That being said, I don’t agree with the premise implied by many in this thread that if the United States has ever done anything bad, then it’s right for China to do it too. Even if history and modern moral sensibilities were to conclude that Lincoln was some kind of Attila the Hun who barbarically destroyed the Confederacy, that wouldn’t take away the right of Taiwan’s people to govern themselves. Likewise, the Native American genocide doesn’t excuse China’s violence toward Uyghurs, nor does America’s support of Taiwan excuse its role in Palestine’s occupation, etc. I agree. And with Civil War in the US I think it was actually purely economic dispute, rather than ideological one. Rich south didn't want to support poor north so they wanted to bail out of Confederacy. But I'm no expert on the subject either. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6331 Posts
On August 08 2022 04:38 Mohdoo wrote: This is just gaslighting and whataboutism. Why should Taiwan be forced to join China against their will? I'm not asking what bad things have happened before. I am asking why Taiwan shouldn't have a choice. Why? Nobody asked the people of Hong Kong weather or not they wanted to be a part of China either. But the UK traded them around like a piece of meat. Macao wasn't even a part of China since the 16th century, still didn't stop the Portuguese from handing it over in 1999 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On August 09 2022 01:08 Manit0u wrote: I agree. And with Civil War in the US I think it was actually purely economic dispute, rather than ideological one. Rich south didn't want to support poor north so they wanted to bail out of Confederacy. But I'm no expert on the subject either. I don't want to derail this thread too much but a quick note: the US Civil War was entirely about slavery and racism and not economics. The Confederacy's (the state in open rebellion, also referred to as "the south") Vice President infamously gave a speech known as the Cornerstone Speech where he declared that the Confederacy was based upon “the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.” Also, the northern states (the ones that did not rebel) were doing fine economically. They had industrialized whereas the south had not and that industrialization was in part why the north was able to win the war. To make this relevant to thread: I don't think the US Civil War is a good analogy for what we're seeing between China and Taiwan. I think a better analogy would be if after the Revolutionary War the US made the UK their enemy and constantly threatened to invade so they could reunite the two under one banner. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23516 Posts
The US couldn't care less about the people of Taiwan, their democracy, or sovereignty. All of them are disposable to the US for profit and power. The US's positions on Taiwan are reflective of what it believes will obtain/maintain hegemonic power and/or be the most profitable. The US would have been sanctioned into the ground dozens of times if it were held to a fraction of the standard it leverages the world to hold it's opposition to. Instead the western world turns an effective blind eye to decades of unaccountable US war crimes and unites against the opposition to US hegemony under a false banner of human rights/freedom/democracy/etc. That people ostensibly on the left go full Machiavelli when it comes to US foreign policy is another ball of wax. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16320 Posts
On August 09 2022 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote: To me the US's ongoing war crimes aren't a matter of justifying other bad actions but about understanding the hollow nature of the US's moralizing justifications behind it's aggression against China, illegal invasions, arming and protecting an illegal occupation, arming/supporting an authoritarian absolute monarchy, etc. The US couldn't care less about the people of Taiwan, their democracy, or sovereignty. All of them are disposable to the US for profit and power. The US's positions on Taiwan are reflective of what it believes will obtain/maintain hegemonic power and/or be the most profitable. The US would have been sanctioned into the ground dozens of times if it were held to a fraction of the standard it leverages the world to hold it's opposition to. Instead the western world turns an effective blind eye to decades of unaccountable US war crimes and unites against the opposition to US hegemony under a false banner of human rights/freedom/democracy/etc. That people ostensibly on the left go full Machiavelli when it comes to US foreign policy is another ball of wax. None of this is an argument against supporting Taiwan or for supporting China. Even if all of this is true it does not change the fact that Taiwan should be free to choose themselves if they want to become a part of the PRC or not. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On August 09 2022 01:15 zeo wrote: Nobody asked the people of Hong Kong weather or not they wanted to be a part of China either. But the UK traded them around like a piece of meat. Macao wasn't even a part of China since the 16th century, still didn't stop the Portuguese from handing it over in 1999 What is your conclusion here? Are you saying that was a good or bad thing to do? Are you saying that kind of behavior should continue, or it should stop? | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17554 Posts
On August 09 2022 01:15 zeo wrote: Nobody asked the people of Hong Kong weather or not they wanted to be a part of China either. But the UK traded them around like a piece of meat. Macao wasn't even a part of China since the 16th century, still didn't stop the Portuguese from handing it over in 1999 Hong Kong and Macao were handed over because of the UN resolutions regarding decolonization. UK wanted to maintain governance over Hong Kong for a period of time in an administrative capacity to help facilitate numerous deals (no one wanted to start any new projects there when HK was going to be handed over to China and existing projects started backing out because their future wasn't promised as various land deals and such would become null and void after UK exited the scene). From what I gathered UK was all for making Hong Kong a sovereign territory but China wouldn't agree to that. Situation with Macao was similar, Portugal wasn't interested in keeping it as a colony and was willing to let it go so it could be its own sovereign country but China had its claws dug in. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23516 Posts
On August 09 2022 01:40 justanothertownie wrote: None of this is an argument against supporting Taiwan or for supporting China. + Show Spoiler + Even if all of this is true it does not change the fact that Taiwan should be free to choose themselves if they want to become a part of the PRC or not. It wasn't intended to be. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17554 Posts
I must say that watching media coming out from China feels completely surreal. Like someone would try writing a book for the first time in their life, trying to come up with a fictional country and how it operates and what daily lives of people would look there but having no idea how to do it so it all ends up extremely cringe. | ||
KwarK
United States43363 Posts
On August 09 2022 01:15 zeo wrote: Nobody asked the people of Hong Kong weather or not they wanted to be a part of China either. But the UK traded them around like a piece of meat. Macao wasn't even a part of China since the 16th century, still didn't stop the Portuguese from handing it over in 1999 The lease was expiring and China made it clear to Maggie that they would march in and take it if no deal was signed. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6331 Posts
On August 09 2022 01:43 Mohdoo wrote: What is your conclusion here? Are you saying that was a good or bad thing to do? Are you saying that kind of behavior should continue, or it should stop? I'm saying if the position of the Anglo-centric part of the globe is to not hand over (or let China take) territories whos populations do not want to be a part of China they should have been more consistent about it. I personally think Taiwan is more Chinese and a part of China by identity than Hong Kong, at least Hong Kong as it was before 1997. On August 09 2022 02:00 KwarK wrote: The lease was expiring and China made it clear to Maggie that they would march in and take it if no deal was signed. China has been making it clear for a long time that they would march into Taiwan if they could. China, I think, would be less likely to invade British territory than Taiwan if the UK made a stand for HK. That's my 2 cents. NATO countries never gave two shits about what the UN thought about anything or whatever it decreed if it was against that NATO countries interests. If London wanted it at the time, Hong Kong would still be Hong Kong today. edit: The people of Hong Kong explicitly never wanted to be a part of mainland China, decolonized or colonized. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5713 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43363 Posts
On August 09 2022 04:12 zeo wrote: I'm saying if the position of the Anglo-centric part of the globe is to not hand over (or let China take) territories whos populations do not want to be a part of China they should have been more consistent about it. I personally think Taiwan is more Chinese and a part of China by identity than Hong Kong, at least Hong Kong as it was before 1997. China has been making it clear for a long time that they would march into Taiwan if they could. China, I think, would be less likely to invade British territory than Taiwan if the UK made a stand for HK. That's my 2 cents. NATO countries never gave two shits about what the UN thought about anything or whatever it decreed if it was against that NATO countries interests. If London wanted it at the time, Hong Kong would still be Hong Kong today. edit: The people of Hong Kong explicitly never wanted to be a part of mainland China, decolonized or colonized. How are you simultaneously sure that you’re right and citing NATO while referring to an island off the coast of China? NATO has zero relevance outside the NA region (from the NATO acronym). Hong Kong was militarily indefensible (as has already been explained to you, it’s much closer to the mainland than Taiwan) and diplomatically indefensible (it was seized during the Opium Wars through naked colonialism and there was no good argument for why illegally stolen land ought not to be returned). | ||
| ||
