- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 3273 Hour
- Reading permission
We shouldn't be surprised it was China which had suggested a phasal approach be adopted to break the trade talk impasse. |
Whereas Trump had only wanted a 'total deal', China had wanted visible progress on basis of equality for the simple reason any prolongation of the trade war will only hurt economies all over the world which is what has been happening since Trump started and prolonged it by his flipflop add-more method to destabilize the negotiations in order to try and gain an upper-hand.
One may therefore conclude China has shown constant wisdom, maintained focus on the big picture and worked pragmatically to design solutions to break through the impasse for the greater good of all whereas the US has shown brazen aggression in reflection of Trump's own narcissism with nary a care how its all-or-nothing demand is hurting trade, production and investment throughout the world.
That said, it's good the US farmers have been given a lifeline by China; let's hope they know which buyer country they should shower their gratitude on into the future regardless whether it is republican or democrat which is running their own government. But knowing human nature, that's just a forlorn hope.
Which comes next to the small matters of state-owned enterprises, HongKong and Xinjiang:
- SOEs: in saying they have been subsidized for production, the US forgot one important factor, namely economies-of-scale whose predominant effect is on profit margins.
The profit margin of the world's top 500 manufacturing enterprises rounds to 6.57% last year. In contrast, the profit margin of China's top 500 manufacturing enterprises rounds to 4.37% and the average for all China manufacturing was 2.59%.
Let's simplify the perspective, take that population equals demand inverse to price and thus profit margin, and assume the 6.57% represents US manufacturing based on a population of 320 million; using those numbers as base, China at 1.2 Billion population should yield a manufacturing profit margin of 1.75% for her top 500 enterprises.
That it was higher at 4.37% for 2018 implies there was no subsidy otherwise by the same token the US would have been subsidizing its manufacturers since the same base of calculation was used. And needless to say, if it has really been doing so, then it has no groundsto accuse China.
Similarly China's average of 2.59% for all her manufacturers likewise implies no subsidy since the amount is already larger than the per capita base of 1.75% for the bigger ones which are expected to do better.
Of course there are other factors like land price, capital costs, wage differentials, unionization and automation levels but precisely for these reasons, the US must recognize China's manufacturing model is different from the US' own model and thus not subscribable to the same judgements.
Hence, the US has no grounds to quote China's SOEs as a factor in the trade negotiations. One would like to add all the US' other gripes but let's be charitable today; after all, for Trump's evangelical rustbelters, it's a rest Sunday.
- HongKong: one is not hopeful those wet-behind-ears masked menaces had asked from the very beginning how HongKong came about. Part of Imperial China, it was crowbarred as some versaillean lease by the Brits after the Opium War.
The pointed question here is what if China had just taken back HongKong after the lease expired and kicked the Brits out instead of signing an 'agreement'; after all it had belonged to China all along, and was only ceded temporarily at gunpoint when she tried to fight off the opium invasion which the British would have known of its devastating effect on all societies.
So much for "democratic rule of law" defined, enacted and executed, qwailo-style. So if foreign devils had done that before, why raise their flags - unionjack, starspangle - to do so again? Are those masked ones still bananas? Yellow outside but already CIA-bleached white inside?
- Xinjiang: you can use the finest female tooth-comb to try and scrape out from all the western media on the why for the need to conduct vocational training there but not find anything mentioned for all your effort.
There was no mention at all of the horrifying numbers of killings every week by the ethnic minorities there on civilians and officers of the law. It was outright terrorism perpetrated by the likes of ISIS-minded separatists foreign and domestic who were trying to drum up support by destroying the peace in order to balkanize the province a'la Yugoslavia.
Yet without peace and stability there can be no development and progress. And vocational training has been successful in stopping the killings and mayhem, keeping the peace, stabilizing the communities and maintaining unity. Besides giving the poor locals there jobs, earnings, a progressive future and state protection from the rapaciousness of mischief-makers. If those outbreaks had happened in Virginia or Arizona, there would be anarchy instead that would make the Las Vegas massacre look like something out of the Texas chainsaw genre.
So if the US GOP is against ISIS and terrorism in USA, should it be still practicing double-standards of not being against ISIS-likes in Xinjiang just because it doesn't like the CPC which is the government of China?
One oreo-biscuit if any of the US assembly(wo)men can give a credible answer here.
So.....the US of A has the nerve to sanction the peoples and companies who have been working to maintain the peace and stem the bloodshed there. Is the USA in cahoots with terrorists so long as they cause death elsewhere? Talk about stupidity and schadenfreude.
This moment, having half a mind to go see her again, let's leave here with one on the NBA. How many times before you come to the same conclusion need one say they take your money and then insult you? How many? Keep on toting the costs whose funds could have been better utilized for one's own society at large. And this is not just about the NBA alone. Plenty of other examples, PRC.