It's Not the Job of the Government to Dictate Where Businesses Should Go

[Zhong Lu + 845]

The original bargain between the US administrations starting with Nixon and the Chinese governments were this:

Open your markets to the West.

Embrace capitalism.

In return, as the West, we'll provide you our expertise and money to lift your country out of poverty.  

This bargain has been upheld for the last 40 years.  There were, however, two catches, which are now points of major dispute.

First: given China's history and fear of exploitation, they demanded that any Western company that wished to do business in China give their technological know-how to China.  They didn't want the West to behave in China like the way they behaved elsewhere in the world like Africa.  At the time it was a reasonable offer.  "If you want to do business in our country, then we need to know your business tricks."  For those of you objecting to the fairness of this deal, a sovereign government has the right to demand this, because businesses have the right to refuse and take their business elsewhere.

Second: implicit in the Western belief was that as China modernized, it would hew away from Communism and into their orbit.  This has and has not happened.  China has moved away from Communism, but it didn't move into the West's orbit.  China remains mostly undemocratic, it follows Western rules only when it wants to, it's behavior in SE Asia is atrocious, and it's foreign policy is often at odds with the West.  However, and this is a BIG however, the Chinese have adopted many of the thought processes and mannerisms of the West.  They have an internet better than the one in America, highways that look identical to the ones in the US, a PR machine just as large as the American government, and in one year produce more pollution than the US could produce in ten years.  All signs of modernity and change. This is a HUGE difference from 50 years before, when China and the US was like different worlds, with different species of humans living on them

[Thinking]

************************************************************************************.  

Edited September 1, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Zhong Lu + 845]

So, in this context, criticism of Obama or Clinton for "sucking up to China" is a bit unfair.  They were behaving towards China in roughly the same manner and with roughly the same assumptions towards China as previous administrations like Nixon or Reagan (both Republicans, I might add).  Also, many Americans back then welcomed China's progress, which to some people today may be seen as treason, but had China NOT been welcomed in the US, the Chinese would have modernized anyways from other sources [e.g. Germany and Japan], and done so in a way much more hostile to the US.  

The Japanese modernized mostly independent of US help.  If anything they modernized BECAUSE of the threat the US posed (American battleship in Japanese harbor demanding at gunpoint that they open their ports).  80 years later, Pearl Harbor.  If Japan could  modernize  without the US, China could have done it, too.  

****************************************************************************

Edited September 1, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Zhong Lu + 845]

I don't like discussing intentions of administrations because honestly I believe that administrations don't have intentions because administrations are not mammals, and only mammals can have intentions.  If this sounds odd, fine, we'll leave it as a subject of future debate.  The point is that I'm not interested in discussing the "intentions of the Obama or Trump administration."  As far as I'm concerned, both Obama and Trump (the individuals) are trying to do what they thought was best for America.  Obama looked at the lessons of WWI and WWII, of the hostility of the Western democracies towards Germany, as something not to be repeated in history.  And so he hired minions and directed them  to look at China from that angle.  Trump sees China as "taking advantage of the US", and so similarly he hires minions and directs them  to treat China from his angle.  If you're here to tell me of the evils of the Obama administration, then I will point for you the many websites today telling you of the evils of this administration.  In this respect, both sides are stupid. Neither administration is "evil."  Or at least neither is "more good" or "more evil" than the other.  They're both doing the best with what they believe.  

[If you really pressed me on this matter, I'm inclined to tell you that EVERY administration is evil.  So if you think "because I hate X I must like Y," think again.  It's entirely possible that I could hate both X and Y.  The goal is not for "good" to beat "evil," but for "evil" to cancel out "evil" so everyone else can live in peace.  Think Zerg vs Protoss or Alien vs Predator.  All people in charge of administrations and large bureaucratic political bodies act as bullies. Period. ]

************************************************************************

Edited September 1, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Today, every time I think of China's expansion into SE Asia, and elsewhere, I think of Vietnam.  They know who their enemy is, unlike those stupid Philippines.  A lot of China's behavior in their backyard is similar to Germany's before WWI.  I understand both the Japanese and the Vietnamese positions.  China is a threat.  If they're a bit creeped out, then yeah, I can see why.  

However, one caveat: 

China is doing good outside of Asia.  Note how there hasn't been much of any news recently coming out of Africa.  This is a good sign for Africa, and the reason why is because China is developing the economy of the nations in Africa in much the same manner China developed its own economy.  According to the Chinese government, poverty is the root of all ills.  So the first step, according to them is not human rights, or any of that nonsense, but the eradication of poverty.  Whether this is true is a matter of debate, but this pragmatic policy is working in Africa, or at least is working better than anything the US or the West has done.  The West spent thirty years trying to "fix" Africa. Nothing got fixed.  China isn't even trying to fix Africa.  They're there to make money.  Africa is improving.  

******************************************************************************************************

Edited September 1, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Zhong Lu + 845]

In this respect I agree with the Chinese administration.  The best way to eradicate poverty is through economic development with the incentive of trade.  I like trade.  Free trade is a good thing.  Unfortunately, Trump doesn't share these values, which is why I don't like Trump or his administration.  A common American perspective is that Trump is punishing China with his tariffs.  That China will feel the pain and through this punishment reform their policies.  Another common American perspective is that China and US are destined to be enemies, so the sooner Americans start "containing and standing up to China" the better.  

To the first perspective, this is misguided.  First, on a financial level, tariffs are actually making the Chinese government RICHER at the expense of private companies, which is the exact opposite of what you actually want to do.  Consider: because of these tariffs, which securities have appreciated the most in the last two years? Answer: Gold, and US Treasuries.  Guess who owns lots of Gold and US Treasuries? The Chinese government.  Who is getting hurt by the tariffs? The private Chinese companies trying to sell stuff to America.  So in this respect tariffs are backfiring.  Unlike how many Americans think about it, China isn't a single monolithic entity.  The corporate interests may be hurt by the tariffs, but the large bureaucratic Chinese government is doing fine (in fact it's profiting from the tariffs).  

To the second perspective, to contain China you must build multilateral alliances, and cannot be isolationist.  So there, we have a problem right there.  Do you want the US to be isolationist, or do you want the US to contain China? And no, you can't choose both.  It won't work.  If your goal is to be isolationist, then step away from Asia and Africa and South America and let China "waste their money" filling the void you left and in thirty years we can again have a debate on how that turned out. If your goal is to build multilateral alliances, then it helps to NOT BE AN ASS.  This is the OTHER REASON why I don't like Trump.  His behavior is sabotaging his efforts.  You might see Trump's ass-like behavior as "a good negotiating tactic." I see it as the height of stupidity.  The Chinese government is not at all intimidated by his antics.  You can see it in their behavior in Venezuela, Iran, SE Asia, and elsewhere.  

Edited September 1, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nobody's totally perfect. Although I grant you that I do get pretty close. 

No one else can sign off like that here and get away with it     😂

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Anywho, that was a bit long but hopefully it clarifies my position.  I'm not criticizing Trump's decision to confront China.  That is his prerogative, and if he thinks that's the best choice, then so be it.  I have mixed feelings either way.  What annoys me is just how stupidly he's going on about it.  Everything he's doing in regards to China is either having no effect, or having the opposite effect of what he says he intends.  The US pulled out of TPP.  Guess what: China is more than happy to take its place.  In the meantime, while the US is focused on its trade deficit with China, China is slowly building up islands in middle of SE Asia that no one seems to be paying attention to.  Furthermore, China is expanding not only into Africa, but into South America (Venezuela) of all places, all under the watchful eyes of this administration.  Does Trump want to be isolationist or does Trump want to confront China? No one knows, not even Trump.  But he better decide, otherwise he'll accomplish nothing or perhaps even less than nothing.  

Edited September 1, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[James Regan + 1,776]

2 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

The Opium War is probably the best example where the Brits started a war to sell drugs to China.

Fair comment it was fairly brutal and most definitely affected Chinas GDP, the Brits were ruthless and I guess thats why a poxy little Island ended up dominating the globe for some time, I personally would have taken up the Chinese offer and swapped it for tea, but after the French missionary got butchered the shit hit the fan. No doubt China got a raw deal.

As you like history is ironic how things pan out, with current issues in HK and Macau (well thats the best place in the world, full of hookers and casinos and one of the best bloodbath Moto GP racing circuits in the world, I digress sorry) and how the population are obviously very pissed off at China.

Brits-Opium-world domination 1800s

China-5G-World domination 2019

And the world continues to turn.........

Respectfully

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Not unless NOK has a say in it, though, unfortunately, it's stock price rarely moves up (but does a lot of nice sideways trading).  

And thanks for reading.  

[SKEP + 229]

16 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

In this respect I agree with the Chinese administration.  The best way to eradicate poverty is through economic development with the incentive of trade.  I like trade.  Free trade is a good thing.  Unfortunately, Trump doesn't share these values, which is why I don't like Trump or his administration.  A common American perspective is that Trump is punishing China with his tariffs.  That China will feel the pain and through this punishment reform their policies.  Another common American perspective is that China and US are destined to be enemies, so the sooner Americans start "containing and standing up to China" the better.  

To the first perspective, this is misguided.  First, on a financial level, tariffs are actually making the Chinese government RICHER at the expense of private companies, which is the exact opposite of what you actually want to do.  Consider: because of these tariffs, which securities have appreciated the most in the last two years? Answer: Gold, and US Treasuries.  Guess who owns lots of Gold and US Treasuries? The Chinese government.  Who is getting hurt by the tariffs? The private Chinese companies trying to sell stuff to America.  So in this respect tariffs are backfiring.  Unlike how many Americans think about it, China isn't a single monolithic entity.  The corporate interests may be hurt by the tariffs, but the large bureaucratic Chinese government is doing fine (in fact it's profiting from the tariffs).  

To the second perspective, to contain China you must build multilateral alliances, and cannot be isolationist.  So there, we have a problem right there.  Do you want the US to be isolationist, or do you want the US to contain China? And no, you can't choose both.  It won't work.  If your goal is to be isolationist, then step away from Asia and Africa and South America and let China "waste their money" filling the void you left and in thirty years we can again have a debate on how that turned out. If your goal is to build multilateral alliances, then it helps to NOT BE AN ASS.  This is the OTHER REASON why I don't like Trump.  His behavior is sabotaging his efforts.  You might see Trump's ass-like behavior as "a good negotiating tactic." I see it as the height of stupidity.  The Chinese government is not at all intimidated by his antics.  You can see it in their behavior in Venezuela, Iran, SE Asia, and elsewhere.  

Huh?

[SKEP + 229]

15 hours ago, James Regan said:

Fair comment it was fairly brutal and most definitely affected Chinas GDP, the Brits were ruthless and I guess thats why a poxy little Island ended up dominating the globe for some time, I personally would have taken up the Chinese offer and swapped it for tea, but after the French missionary got butchered the shit hit the fan. No doubt China got a raw deal.

As you like history is ironic how things pan out, with current issues in HK and Macau (well thats the best place in the world, full of hookers and casinos and one of the best bloodbath Moto GP racin

Edited September 1, 2019 by SKEP

[Zhong Lu + 845]

So which part do you not understand SKEP? 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

@Zhong Lu impressive effort at clarifying your views in that series of comments above.  Well done in trying to clearly articulate your overall viewpoints in the China / U S. trade tussle. 

Helpful for those of us who couldn't quite figure out the rationale behind some of your rather unique comments in the past.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

@Tom Kirkman Thank you! Glad to help.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

28 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

@Tom Kirkman Thank you! Glad to help.  

I remind you that those are nothing more than your conjectures.  Whether or not any of that actually corresponds to history is yet another matter.  Your idea that the US tariffs are actually making the China govt richer is just preposterous.  That has no grounding in reality.  Sorry to burst your bubble. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 9/1/2019 at 2:24 AM, Zhong Lu said:

@Ward Smith and Others

Actually, let's clear this up.  What do I believe in? I know what I believe in, but what I'm curious about, Ward Smith and others, is what you think I believe in.  

I suspect there's going to some pretty big differences between what you think I believe in and what I believe in.  So let's clear them up.  Give me a list of what you think I believe in and I'll let you know if that list is correct or not.  

Then we can continue this discussion on a more rational basis because right now it sounds like you're punching a straw man.  

Or conversely, you can simply state your beliefs and we can cut out that guessing game in the middle. Wouldn’t that be easier and more efficient for everyone concerned?

[James Regan + 1,776]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Or conversely, you can simply state your beliefs and we can cut out that guessing game in the middle. Wouldn’t that be easier and more efficient for everyone concerned?

I like @Tom Kirkmans idea of putting it on the table with a CV or resume of what you do in this business and will avoid any guessing if we are talking to 14 year olds under the sheets at night with a Flashlight or Torch (wherever you're from).

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 9/1/2019 at 3:30 AM, Enthalpic said:

The "mental case" may be a student who now has easy access to guns.

Statistically you are far more likely to kill yourself, or get murdered with your own gun, than you are to stop a crime.

Responsible gun ownership for hunting: long gun in a safe with a trigger lock, ammo stored separately also locked.

If you do not know how to use a handgun properly and do not intend to put the time and effort into learning how to do so - do not purchase a handgun for home defence and end up shooting yourself or others.

By the same token, do not use your fear of handguns, or your lack of interest in becoming proficient with them, dictate what others do.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

15 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I remind you that those are nothing more than your conjectures.  Whether or not any of that actually corresponds to history is yet another matter.  Your idea that the US tariffs are actually making the China govt richer is just preposterous.  That has no grounding in reality.  Sorry to burst your bubble. 

Sure, just as your statements about manufacturing returning to the US is nothing but conjecture, too.  I'm sorry to burst your bubble but manufacturing, even if it leaves China, is only going to move to Africa or SE Asia.  For every factory that opens in the US, another closes. 

And regardless of conjecture, just look at the Chinese government's behavior.  After these tariffs and Trump's antics, does it look like it's behaved any differently than in the past? All of the evidence points to the fact that NOTHING HAS CHANGED, except that there's less trade, more expensive goods in the US, and manufacturing leaving China for other places outside the US. But the last trend was a preexisting trend that started in the Bush era, that the tariffs are only accelerating.  Trump may have justification to confront the Chinese government, especially given their behavior in SE Asia, but his tactics are shi-.  He can't seem to make up his mind on whether he wants to confront China, or whether he wants to be an isolationist, and so he's sabotaging himself.  

All of the evidence suggests that the Chinese government is taking the tariffs in stride.  I'm a free trade, open borders type of person and all of this anti-trade nonsense annoys me, especially when it's not getting anything done except making both Chinese and US consumers/producers poorer.  

Edited September 2, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Zhong Lu + 845]

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Or conversely, you can simply state your beliefs and we can cut out that guessing game in the middle. Wouldn’t that be easier and more efficient for everyone concerned?

So I have.  See the many posts above. I stated my beliefs.  Now read it if you dare.  

Edited September 2, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

11 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

So I have.  See the many posts above. I stated my beliefs.  Now read it if you dare.  

I think at this point nobody cares.  You have your "beliefs."   What you have not figured out is that nobody agrees, and your "beliefs" carry no water.  "Now read it if you dare"?    Why bother?  Nobody is going to take it seriously, because those are not serious presentations.  Mr. Lu, you are going to have to recognize that what you write is nothing more than your ideas of how the world works, which stands at  variance to how the world really works.  At this point I drop any further discussions, and bid you Good Day. 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

LOL.  That's like the third time you've told me you're going to stop talking to me.  Hopefully this time it'll stick? 

Also, what I wrote in that quote was not in response to you but to someone else who did ask for my beliefs.  And yet out of nowhere you decided to interject your rude and completely unnecessary opinion.  Are you sure you're not the narcissist here? 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

If you do not know how to use a handgun properly and do not intend to put the time and effort into learning how to do so - do not purchase a handgun for home defence and end up shooting yourself or others.

By the same token, do not use your fear of handguns, or your lack of interest in becoming proficient with them, dictate what others do.

Don't forget getting shot with your own gun!  AKA don't cheat on your wife! haha

Also don't get depressed.

 

Personally I would use a shotgun rather than a handgun, much harder to miss.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Enthalpic

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

On 8/31/2019 at 6:23 PM, Zhong Lu said:

The original bargain between the US administrations starting with Nixon and the Chinese governments were this:

Open your markets to the West.

Embrace capitalism.

In return, as the West, we'll provide you our expertise and money to lift your country out of poverty.  

This bargain has been upheld for the last 40 years.  There were, however, two catches, which are now points of major dispute.

And no where in this fantasy "history" is China signing its name, agreeing to WTO terms and conditions for trade like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY....  Terms China has refused to implement and adhere to.  So, now, China is effectively in the process of being kicked out of the WTO unless they change, reverting to prior status before WTO admittance.

So, yes, now China can trade with rest of world, but with higher tariffs than those nations in the WTO unless individual nations, who are all sovereign lower the tariffs just for China which is their right.   

Your points of dispute are a joke. 

Acknowledged history other than the warped "century of humiliation".  If you applied the same logic to every other nation(at least two of which are INSIDE China's borders....) every nation has been under a "century of humiliation".  Why?  Because China humiliated itself for the most part without any outside powers help. 

Do not worry, history rolls along.  What is true is that every nation will humiliate themselves.  Bravo.  Welcome to humanity. 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

And no where in this fantasy "history" is China signing its name, agreeing to WTO terms and conditions for trade like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY....  Terms China has refused to implement and adhere to.  So, now, China is effectively in the process of being kicked out of the WTO unless they change, reverting to prior status before WTO admittance.

So, yes, now China can trade with rest of world, but with higher tariffs than those nations in the WTO unless individual nations, who are all sovereign lower the tariffs just for China which is their right.   

Your points of dispute are a joke. 

Acknowledged history other than the warped "century of humiliation".  If you applied the same logic to every other nation(at least two of which are INSIDE China's borders....) every nation has been under a "century of humiliation".  Why?  Because China humiliated itself for the most part without any outside powers help. 

Do not worry, history rolls along.  What is true is that every nation will humiliate themselves.  Bravo.  Welcome to humanity. 

As I said: "it's up to debate."  Was China humiliated by "itself" or by "foreigners?" People are still arguing over it.  If you carefully read what I wrote, I said: "there is more than sufficient evidence for some people to conclude that China was humiliated by foreigners." Or something neutral along those lines. I didn't say this view was correct.  I only said that there was evidence for it, and that some people (i.e. Mao, etc.) came to the conclusion that China was humiliated by foreigners.  And that this conclusion drove the Chinese Communist Party to adopt the guidelines on forcible transfer of technology from Western firms to China.  

I'm not arguing which side is correct.  I'm merely pointing out the motivations of the CCP to do what they did and to provide historical context for their behavior today..  

Also, I never said China was part of team USA.  In fact, I think I explicitly wrote "China modernized, but didn't join team USA," or something along those lines.  So when you're saying "China isn't following the rules established by the US", my response is: you're kinda correct.  I actually agree. They're following some of the rules, but not others.

Finally, when it comes to international agreements and organizations, here's my question for you: should Trump stick to them, or should he scrap them? This WTO thing that you're talking about is in fact an "international organization," which also happens to be a term that Trump supporters like to denigrate.  So which is it: do you support "globalist international organizations" or do you hate them? My point is this: you can't be isolationist and then claim China isn't following the WTO without sounding schizophrenic.  Trump is going to have to choose between his isolationist base vs his "confront China" base or NOTHING will get accomplished.  The two goals are mutually contradictory.  

Edited September 2, 2019 by Zhong Lu