Toronto Escorts

It turns out China is not a Painting contractor

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
Big HK business, who started this whole mess my instigating the students, will feel the economic pain resulting.
I disagree. Big HK business wants no political disruption or agitation of Mainland China. HK business has too much business with the Mainland. They are mostly silent. Privately, some might admire the protesters, but there is no outward support.
 

smuddan

Well-known member
Mar 7, 2007
2,235
259
83
wilbur;6473378 HK did not have democracy said:
Wrong ! While Hongkonger didn't have the right to vote just as they don't today, they were entitled to freedom of speech and a fair and independent judiciary system when Hong Kong under the British laws.

Had the extradition bill passed, the communist China would extradite anyone who they consider a security threat to the ruling party. It's up to the ruling party to determine what they consider as a "security threat" and the courts must rule as directed by the party. It'd literally take away freedom of speech as any disparaging remarks against the communist party would be a crime and the accused would not be entitled to the same legal help as we would get in the western world with democracy.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,716
17,562
113
I think that it is likely that China will restore order in HK, at the 'invitation' of the HK government.

You will probably see an interruption of social media or internet. That's likely the method used to gather people. The US NGO National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US government and Geoge Soros, has funneled 300,000 USD to the student movement. That's going to cease, and the student leaders will get arrested.
Slipping a little anti-Semitic trope into the discussion?

Canada should be worried, with 350,000 Canadians in HK and no recourse if China sends in the army, as they are threatening, it could get ugly.
Again.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
Slipping a little anti-Semitic trope into the discussion?

Canada should be worried, with 350,000 Canadians in HK and no recourse if China sends in the army, as they are threatening, it could get ugly.
Again.
Is it ok to criticize Marx, or is that anti Semitic? How about Epstein? Can I criticize Soros? Just wondering...
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Is it ok to criticize Marx, or is that anti Semitic? How about Epstein? Can I criticize Soros? Just wondering...
You should not criticize Marx, that only makes you look uneducated.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
I think there are also British citizens in HK (not sure how many).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law_and_Hong_Kong
It's a very complicated situation. Anyone born in Hong Kong before 1997 (ethnic Chinese included) either already have or are entitled to a British National (Overseas) Passport (BNO). I believe that while this doesn't guarantee you a work permit or residence in the UK, it hypothetically should allow you to leave the country. I'm not sure China views this the same way. I don't even think the British guarantee consular rights in HK to BNO holders.

Since so many Hong Kongers never applied or let their ten year BNO passports expire, I'm curious to know if there has been a flood of applications in recent months. Remember any Hong Konger currently under 22 years old has no rights to a BNO passport. They know they have more limited options.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
It's a very complicated situation. Anyone born in Hong Kong before 1997 (ethnic Chinese included) either already have or are entitled to a British National (Overseas) Passport (BNO). I believe that while this doesn't guarantee you a work permit or residence in the UK, it hypothetically should allow you to leave the country. I'm not sure China views this the same way. I don't even think the British guarantee consular rights in HK to BNO holders.

Since so many Hong Kongers never applied or let their ten year BNO passports expire, I'm curious to know if there has been a flood of applications in recent months. Remember any Hong Konger currently under 22 years old has no rights to a BNO passport. They know they have more limited options.
They should pool their money together and buy Madagascar or Maldives. There is no future for them in China.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Trump blinked.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Trump blinked.
He does this all the time, it worked getting him elected, it worked with Mexico and immigration.

China has no idea what he’s going to do, that has to freak them out.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
China Strikes Back—Sort Of
Beijing is feeling the pain of American tariffs but doesn’t want to lose face.

Milton Ezrati is a contributing editor at The National Interest, an affiliate of the Center for the Study of Human Capital at the University at Buffalo (SUNY), and chief economist for Vested, the New York-based communications firm. His latest book is Thirty Tomorrows: The Next Three Decades of Globalization, Demographics, and How We Will Live.

China has upped the ante in its trade dispute with the United States. By allowing the yuan to fall on foreign exchange markets, Beijing has shown how far it will go in response to existing U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, as well as additional ones now threatened by President Trump. (Today, the White House announced that these new tariffs would go forward as expected on September 1 but delayed levies on certain products, including electronics, until December.) But China’s moves, bold and headline-grabbing as they are, also signal weakness: Beijing can no longer play the tit-for-tat tariff game with which it once engaged the Trump White House. And because the devaluation has raised the risk of capital flight from China (and with it, longer-term economic difficulties), the currency move also hints at desperation to find immediate relief from the economic pain that the tariffs are inflicting.

With or without the devaluation, Beijing is in a tough spot. On one side, the Communist Party can ill afford a trade war, since it has an implicit contract with the Chinese people to deliver prosperity in exchange for autocratic rule. But Beijing cannot countenance Washington’s demands that China import more from the United States, cease cyber theft, and let Americans do business in China without Chinese partners. These aren’t new demands, but the Trump White House wants them guaranteed in Chinese law. This last point, China’s leadership claims, is an affront to the country’s sovereignty—already a sensitive issue, given the turmoil in Hong Kong.

China has always held the weak economic hand in this dispute. Its export-dependent economy depends on overseas sales, which comprise one-fifth of its gross domestic product (GDP). More than one-quarter of those exports go to the United States, meaning that fully 5 percent of China’s economy is exposed in this trade dispute. By contrast, the United States counts on exports for about 12 percent of its GDP, and barely 8 percent of its total exports go to China—leaving just 1 percent of the U.S. economy exposed to retaliatory Chinese tariffs. Moreover, some 30 percent of U.S. goods sold in China are off limits to tariffs, as they constitute components, mostly to computer and iPhone assemblies, that support Chinese exports.

These relative disadvantages showed themselves early in the dispute. American firms began moving their operations elsewhere, while many Chinese firms have decamped to other Asian countries, in large part to avoid the American levies. Even the perennially upbeat (and suspect) official Chinese government statistics show that the economy is suffering—China’s GDP during the second quarter grew in real terms at its slowest rate since 1992. Export volumes appear to have dropped more than 4 percent in the past year. Imports have also declined by more than 5 percent, indicating a drop in employment and consumer spending. While official figures still suggest a robust Chinese jobs market, with unemployment just below 5 percent of the workforce, surveys of Chinese media show a marked drop in help-wanted advertising, with ads for technology jobs down more than 20 percent. These economic setbacks have also constrained China’s access to hard currencies, primarily the dollar, forcing a dramatic ebb in China’s once-mighty flow of overseas investments. In the first half of 2018, investment volumes ran at one-quarter their pace during this same period in 2017.

Long before the recent devaluation, these severe economic setbacks had already put China’s yuan under pressure. Until recently, the People’s Bank of China resisted that downward push. The authorities were aware that a currency devaluation could help offset the tariffs by reducing the price of Chinese goods against the dollar. They resisted nonetheless because China needs financial capital, and in reaction to a loss of the global purchasing power of the yuan, Chinese wealth holders—individuals and firms—will send their money abroad. The Chinese also understand that a devaluation to offset the Trump tariffs would mean that Chinese operations would receive fewer dollars for each sale; in other words, manufacturers would pay the tariffs for the American buyers. Given these risks, the Chinese currency devaluation indicates that the leadership is in a bind, with no other way to retaliate against Trump’s tariffs. China is likely suffering intense immediate economic pain.

Sovereignty issues matter a great deal to the Chinese. If the Americans were to relent on this point, Beijing would sign a deal quickly. But the White House has good reasons for insisting on changes in the law. American presidents since Bill Clinton have all complained, as does Trump, about Chinese trade practices, and Beijing has continually offered assurances—most recently in the much-touted agreement between Xi Jinping and President Barack Obama—that it always reneges on. Trump’s hard line is a response to this past duplicity. And it is this aspect of the dispute that has made it so difficult for the two countries to come to agreement, despite powerful economic incentives.

The United States could have an agreement tomorrow if the White House were willing to accept China’s vague promises. But America doesn’t need to give in to the Chinese obstinacy. China’s economic challenges clearly make it eager to find some solution. When Trump showed exasperation earlier this year and announced a second wave of tariffs, Chinese president Xi quickly sent a conciliatory letter. Even now, talks continue. What’s needed is a diplomatic formula that gives the United States better guarantees but that also does not make China appear to be conceding on the sovereignty matter. China might yet succumb to economic pressure and yield to American demands—but the prospect of a deal would brighten considerably if the White House could offer Xi a means of saving face.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,716
17,562
113
He does this all the time, it worked getting him elected, it worked with Mexico and immigration.

China has no idea what he’s going to do, that has to freak them out.
They are just waiting him out.
'Course the recession will likely hit before that happens now.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
He does this all the time, it worked getting him elected, it worked with Mexico and immigration.

China has no idea what he’s going to do, that has to freak them out.
In game theory, unpredictable is good, unreliable not so good.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,899
1,172
113
As typical, we get our usual collection of Never Trumpers united with more radical Anti-American/Anti-West socialists. Now it's possible we have a few Mainland Chinese popping up in the conversation. How exciting!

Folks this isn't about Trump vs. China. No matter how this current trade dispute settles I assure this will be a long-run theme for many years to come. Democrat Presidents, Republican Presidents will be fighting with China over trade for a long time.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
Wrong ! While Hongkonger didn't have the right to vote just as they don't today, they were entitled to freedom of speech and a fair and independent judiciary system when Hong Kong under the British laws.

Had the extradition bill passed, the communist China would extradite anyone who they consider a security threat to the ruling party. It's up to the ruling party to determine what they consider as a "security threat" and the courts must rule as directed by the party. It'd literally take away freedom of speech as any disparaging remarks against the communist party would be a crime and the accused would not be entitled to the same legal help as we would get in the western world with democracy.
Absolute bullshit.

The extradition law was meant for mainland chinese criminals to be sent back to China for trial, usually for embezzlement of state funds. The extradition process includes review by the HK courts, just like any other country's extradition procedures. China could not automatically request extradition of HK residents unless a case was made that they actually broke the law on the mainland.

The 2014 protests had to do with the inability to elect the chief executive by popular vote.... which was completely misinformed because very few world heads of state are actually elected directly by the electorate. The US President is elected by the Electoral College, not the people directly. In the UK and Canada, the head of state is HM the Queen; the head of government, the Prime Minister, becomes as such when his party gets the most seats in the House of Commons, not because the electorate voted directly for him.

Pre-1997, the HK governor was appointed by London, not elected.

The present system in HK, the legislature is composed of two parts: the representatives elected by the people (40 seats), and the other side, the functional constituency (30 seats), elected from of the business, associations, banking sector and other legal entities that drives HK's society; it is the latter that votes for the Chief Executive. This system was invented by the British as far back as 1984, and more functional seats were added by the British themselves. The system never changed since 1997, and it is false to claim the HK is less democratic than before. The Chief Executive's election is endorsed by Beijing, not decided by Beijing. In the case of the British governor, he never got elected.

A more balanced view of the situation is contained in an article in Singapore's Straits Times.

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/the-cost-of-the-hong-kong-protests-the-star-columnist

The US is accused of meddling in HK affairs through their US government funded NGO National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and have funded dissident HK organisations over $300,000; they use social media to whip gullible students into a frenzy.

If China decides to clamp down, the protesters will wind up with a lot less than they have now.
 

smuddan

Well-known member
Mar 7, 2007
2,235
259
83
Absolute bullshit.

The extradition law was meant for mainland chinese criminals to be sent back to China for trial, usually for embezzlement of state funds. The extradition process includes review by the HK courts, just like any other country's extradition procedures. China could not automatically request extradition of HK residents unless a case was made that they actually broke the law on the mainland.

The 2014 protests had to do with the inability to elect the chief executive by popular vote.... which was completely misinformed because very few world heads of state are actually elected directly by the electorate. The US President is elected by the Electoral College, not the people directly. In the UK and Canada, the head of state is HM the Queen; the head of government, the Prime Minister, becomes as such when his party gets the most seats in the House of Commons, not because the electorate voted directly for him.

Pre-1997, the HK governor was appointed by London, not elected.

The present system in HK, the legislature is composed of two parts: the representatives elected by the people (40 seats), and the other side, the functional constituency (30 seats), elected from of the business, associations, banking sector and other legal entities that drives HK's society; it is the latter that votes for the Chief Executive. This system was invented by the British as far back as 1984, and more functional seats were added by the British themselves. The system never changed since 1997, and it is false to claim the HK is less democratic than before. The Chief Executive's election is endorsed by Beijing, not decided by Beijing. In the case of the British governor, he never got elected.

A more balanced view of the situation is contained in an article in Singapore's Straits Times.

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/the-cost-of-the-hong-kong-protests-the-star-columnist

The US is accused of meddling in HK affairs through their US government funded NGO National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and have funded dissident HK organisations over $300,000; they use social media to whip gullible students into a frenzy.

If China decides to clamp down, the protesters will wind up with a lot less than they have now.
Obviously you are not as good in understanding why Hong Kongers are against the extradition bill as you are in spreading communist China's propaganda, and you are either ignorant or blind to human rights issues and the lack of a fair and independent judiciary system in Mainland China.

The 4 chief executives since 1997 were all hand picked by Beijing and the election system in a joke. Incompetence and corruption in various levels of the HK government, from the multi million MTR scandals to the $50million bribery accusations of the previous chief executive, have infuriated and caused great grief among Hong Kongers.

One thing I can agree with you is that if China send in their troops and apply martial laws, the demonstration will come to an abrupt halt. The only reason they're hesitant is they still need Hong Kong for economic gains and by sending the PLA they risk big time in
demolishing the "golden egg". Instead, they are infiltrating the HK police force with members of the Chinese Ministry of Public Security and the HK police force is now under the direct control of the Chinese Central Liaison Office in HK
 

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,076
58
48
hornyville
Trump blinked.
President Trump goes around in circles with his China policy and trade war.

He is either incompetent or making it up as he goes along with the US-China trade war. A trade war he started.

It does not help he listens to that crackpot Navarro. The Chinese are laughing at these guys.

The PRC already stated what the pre-conditions to end the trade war. That all US tariffs are to be lifted. That all sanctions against Hauwei to be lifted. There will be no enforcement mechanisms only consultations if a deal is reached. Also talking about domestic Chinese government policy is not negotiable either.

Those were the pre-conditions publicly stated a few weeks ago.

What the Americans decide to do, that is entirely up to them.

Such as having Lightzenger phoning his trade counterpart in China the other day.

That is all we need to know who is seeking out whom. Just like the last time in May that the negotiations reached a deadlock. The Americans initiated and reached out to the Chinese. The Chinese could not be bothered to do that.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
In game theory, unpredictable is good, unreliable not so good.
They walked away from the deal because they realized it had real commitments in it. He’s being very reliable, they are not.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts