Hong Kong

[Novus America]

Notice how you said nothing about human rights.
Basically you only dislike the PRC’s protectionism. Not that you dislike their brutal one party dictatorship. See the problem is you have one (self serving) priority, and nobody else here has that one same priority.

Excuse me? How the hell is it self-serving? I'm not a businessman in HK or the Mainland, its just being an objective analyst. If the PRC adopted tougher IP laws, abided by WTO rules better, and dropped capital controls, the Mainland economy would be better. And if HK dropped its functional constituency system, its status as a prosperous financial hub in Asia would be threatened and capital flight will occur as people fear left-wing populism taking over the city. All I care about is having a political structure that adequately provides for economic prosperity and stability, nothing self-serving there, wouldn't you say?

Because it is what benefits you stock portfolio.
Which is clearly what you care most about.

First of all protectionism built the PRC, if they dropped it their economy would be hit hard.
And again no talk about human rights. Organ harvesting dictators are A OK if their policies are neoliberal enough.

And again this is garbage because all the other financial hubs do fine without that system.
Plus Hong Kong only provide prosperity for some, not for all.

[Purgatio]

How many leaders of the HK Rioters have condemned those acts of violence? You keep saying they are isolated but am I supposed to believe an 'isolated' section of the protestors were able to shut down an airport or block up MTR stations or break into the LegCo? Seems more than just an isolated tiny de minimis chunk of people, right?

It's a dedicated set that maintain the new cycle, it's unfortunate but necessary alas. We all learned in 2014 that no matter the will of the people, no matter the sentiment, no matter the majority, no change comes from compromise or dialogue.

Why should our freedoms be taken away from us?

To what levels would you accept your own freedoms to be taken away before you acted, because god knows it would be too late.

This sounds like an admission that the HK protest leaders have come to accept and condone and tolerate the pervasive infliction of violence on person and property, because the ends justify the means. Which kinda contradicts all the stuff people have been saying about "oh, but its a small minority". Sure, a small minority, but a tactic that the HK rioters and protestors have no doubt acquiesced in and accepted to get the political aims they want.

[Genivaria]

This is really what apologists of the CCP are all about, they don't actually give a shit about the freedom or well-being of the Chinese people, just the continuation of the power of the CCP and in return the CCP establishes a sort of caste system based around party loyalty.

[Bombadil]

They all have representation with one person one vote.

But the different interests aren't represented adequately in such a system. The leaders in HK's financial sector, asset and wealth management sector, they have a bigger stake in government policies than someone in HK with no wealth and hence little stake in HK's future trajectory or its maintenance as a thriving financial hub. The present system balances their competing interests in a polycentric institution that represents people with different views from different sections of society and the economy. They duke it out in the LegCo and any laws passed are a good and adequate compromise of what the average person wants versus important commercial sectors of the economy.

That's a very dangerous way of thinking and partly why HK has such terrible inequality - the ideal is to create a healthy balanced society not a highly stratified, unequal society, and that's why one person, one vote is important.

Yet if that's really the way you think then there's no arguing here.

[Novus America]

They all have representation with one person one vote.

But the different interests aren't represented adequately in such a system. The leaders in HK's financial sector, asset and wealth management sector, they have a bigger stake in government policies than someone in HK with no wealth and hence little stake in HK's future trajectory or its maintenance as a thriving financial hub. The present system balances their competing interests in a polycentric institution that represents people with different views from different sections of society and the economy. They duke it out in the LegCo and any laws passed are a good and adequate compromise of what the average person wants versus important commercial sectors of the economy.

Again just repeating yourself does not make it more convincing.

[Novus America]

Lol no it isn't. The sectoral seats were literally established to entrench pro-business (and pro-Beijing) support.

Then why have geographical constituencies at all? Why not abolish them all? The aim is to achieve balance between the geographical and functional constituencies and the sectors and demographics whose interests they protect.

To give the lower classes the illusion that they have a real say.

[Bombadil]

It's a dedicated set that maintain the new cycle, it's unfortunate but necessary alas. We all learned in 2014 that no matter the will of the people, no matter the sentiment, no matter the majority, no change comes from compromise or dialogue.

Why should our freedoms be taken away from us?

To what levels would you accept your own freedoms to be taken away before you acted, because god knows it would be too late.

This sounds like an admission that the HK protest leaders have come to accept and condone and tolerate the pervasive infliction of violence on person and property, because the ends justify the means. Which kinda contradicts all the stuff people have been saying about "oh, but its a small minority". Sure, a small minority, but a tactic that the HK rioters and protestors have no doubt acquiesced in and accepted to get the political aims they want.

Yes.. that is essentially the case. We may not like it but we understand and accept in and in the face of the far greater violence inflicted by unrepresentative authorities it's a sad price to pay.

A 13 year old girl was given 12 months probation, where the judge stated that only her age stopped a sentence of three years in jail, for burning the China flag.

A piece of cloth has more protections than a 13 year old human being.

[Pasong Tirad]

Lol no it isn't. The sectoral seats were literally established to entrench pro-business (and pro-Beijing) support.

Then why have geographical constituencies at all? Why not abolish them all? The aim is to achieve balance between the geographical and functional constituencies and the sectors and demographics whose interests they protect.

Again, "businesses should have a more powerful say in how Hong Kong is run" is the absolute weirdest hill to die on.

The aim is to maintain the power structures that pro-Beijjng elements in power, keep business profits high and keep poor people suffering through high costs of living. Nothing more.

[Purgatio]

Excuse me? How the hell is it self-serving? I'm not a businessman in HK or the Mainland, its just being an objective analyst. If the PRC adopted tougher IP laws, abided by WTO rules better, and dropped capital controls, the Mainland economy would be better. And if HK dropped its functional constituency system, its status as a prosperous financial hub in Asia would be threatened and capital flight will occur as people fear left-wing populism taking over the city. All I care about is having a political structure that adequately provides for economic prosperity and stability, nothing self-serving there, wouldn't you say?

Because it is what benefits you stock portfolio.
Which is clearly what you care most about.

First of all protectionism built the PRC, if they dropped it their economy would be hit hard.
And again no talk about human rights. Organ harvesting dictators are A OK if their policies are neoliberal enough.

And again this is garbage because all the other financial hubs do fine without that system.
Plus Hong Kong only provide prosperity for some, not for all.

HK is by far one of the most prosperous financial hubs for capital investment in all of Asia, they have their competitors but when an Asian HNWI family wealth manager is choosing how to diversify a family portfolio, there will always be a substantial chunk of investments parked in HK, because that's the kind of reputation HK has in the investment community.

And the idea that protectionism is in China's interests is bizarre given that China joining the WTO and lowering tariffs generally coincided with rapid GDP growth from China. Globalisation and free trade is a win-win scenario, comparative advantages and what not.

But the more important point is that I'm not pro-CCP or pro-PRC because if you want me to criticise China there's a lot I can criticise - the non-compliance with WTO panels rulings on issues like rare earth exports, lack of sufficiently strong IP laws, controls on foreign capital inflows and outflows, etc., belying any suggestion that I think everything the PRC does is wonderful. It's not, but that doesn't mean I have to suddenly love the HK Rioters either.

[Purgatio]

This sounds like an admission that the HK protest leaders have come to accept and condone and tolerate the pervasive infliction of violence on person and property, because the ends justify the means. Which kinda contradicts all the stuff people have been saying about "oh, but its a small minority". Sure, a small minority, but a tactic that the HK rioters and protestors have no doubt acquiesced in and accepted to get the political aims they want.

Yes.. that is essentially the case. We may not like it but we understand and accept in and in the face of the far greater violence inflicted by unrepresentative authorities it's a sad price to pay.

A 13 year old girl was given 12 months probation, where the judge stated that only her age stopped a sentence of three years in jail, for burning the China flag.

A piece of cloth has more protections than a 13 year old human being.

I'm not a fan of flag-burning laws myself, I agree with what SCOTUS said in Texas v. Johnson about the First Amendment, but that doesn't mean I suddenly have to support the throwing of rocks and Molotov cocktails or blocking people from getting onto MTR trains to get to work or smashing windows and stuff. There's right and wrong, pointing to a law I would not enact if given the choice doesn't justify hooliganism and vandalism.

[Purgatio]

Then why have geographical constituencies at all? Why not abolish them all? The aim is to achieve balance between the geographical and functional constituencies and the sectors and demographics whose interests they protect.

Again, "businesses should have a more powerful say in how Hong Kong is run" is the absolute weirdest hill to die on.

The aim is to maintain the power structures that pro-Beijjng elements in power, keep business profits high and keep poor people suffering through high costs of living. Nothing more.

Get rid of the functional constituencies. What happens tomorrow? A wave of left-wing socialists in the pro-democracy camp sweep the LegCo, they sell off all the land in HK to the people, property prices drop, taxes have to rise, Asian HNWI families pull their capital out of HK en masse, the financial investment market in HK collapses overnight, interests rates skyrocket, people lose their jobs, investment plummets. How does that further the standard of living of the average HK resident, exactly? Whats wrong with keeping business profits high if the HK economy depends on that business-friendly environment to thrive?

[Purgatio]

But the different interests aren't represented adequately in such a system. The leaders in HK's financial sector, asset and wealth management sector, they have a bigger stake in government policies than someone in HK with no wealth and hence little stake in HK's future trajectory or its maintenance as a thriving financial hub. The present system balances their competing interests in a polycentric institution that represents people with different views from different sections of society and the economy. They duke it out in the LegCo and any laws passed are a good and adequate compromise of what the average person wants versus important commercial sectors of the economy.

That's a very dangerous way of thinking and partly why HK has such terrible inequality - the ideal is to create a healthy balanced society not a highly stratified, unequal society, and that's why one person, one vote is important.

Yet if that's really the way you think then there's no arguing here.

Whatever the inequality in HK, you can't deny HK is a wealthy and developed city, and ultimately I think that's far more important than class envy or trying to compare rich and poor to no end. How is infrastructure in HK? Or the median income? Pretty good I'd say, especially to most of Asia.

[Bombadil]

Frankly I'm damn proud this little city of 8M is standing up for the right to free speech and universal suffrage against a CCP controlled nation of 1.3B. Frankly it's astounding.

I'm ashamed of those who purport to stand for such values yet stand by. just yesterday Arsenal FC apologised to China for comments by a player about the situation in Xinjiang saying they do not get involved in politics, yet made no comment on another player saying 'Fuck Boris Johnson'.

Everyday there's examples of blatant hypocrisy.

The simple fact is that the ordinary people of HK have zero representation. Did Carrie Lam offer to meet with the Democratic winners in the recent election to find a way forward? No, she offered jobs to those who lost and apologised to them saying it was unfair they'd lost.

[Novus America]

Because it is what benefits you stock portfolio.
Which is clearly what you care most about.

First of all protectionism built the PRC, if they dropped it their economy would be hit hard.
And again no talk about human rights. Organ harvesting dictators are A OK if their policies are neoliberal enough.

And again this is garbage because all the other financial hubs do fine without that system.
Plus Hong Kong only provide prosperity for some, not for all.

HK is by far one of the most prosperous financial hubs for capital investment in all of Asia, they have their competitors but when an Asian HNWI family wealth manager is choosing how to diversify a family portfolio, there will always be a substantial chunk of investments parked in HK, because that's the kind of reputation HK has in the investment community.

And the idea that protectionism is in China's interests is bizarre given that China joining the WTO and lowering tariffs generally coincided with rapid GDP growth from China. Globalisation and free trade is a win-win scenario, comparative advantages and what not.

But the more important point is that I'm not pro-CCP or pro-PRC because if you want me to criticise China there's a lot I can criticise - the non-compliance with WTO panels rulings on issues like rare earth exports, lack of sufficiently strong IP laws, controls on foreign capital inflows and outflows, etc., belying any suggestion that I think everything the PRC does is wonderful. It's not, but that doesn't mean I have to suddenly love the HK Rioters either.

The PRC’s “free trade” is entirely one way. The joined the WTO just to get more access to foreign markets but not allow too much access to theirs.
The PRC is mercantilist. And mercantilism works.
Why are the countries with the most free trade growing much slower than the mercantilist ones?

The most successful major economies have been mercantilist.

Otherwise you just keep repeating yourself. It is not going to convince anyone to just repeat the same thing.

And yes, I get you think the PRC economy is not neoliberal enough. But you still give zero shits about human rights. The problem is that you are not criticizing the PRC for the worst things it does, and criticizing it for all the wrong reasons.

[Pasong Tirad]

Again, "businesses should have a more powerful say in how Hong Kong is run" is the absolute weirdest hill to die on.

The aim is to maintain the power structures that pro-Beijjng elements in power, keep business profits high and keep poor people suffering through high costs of living. Nothing more.

Get rid of the functional constituencies. What happens tomorrow? A wave of left-wing socialists in the pro-democracy camp sweep the LegCo, they sell off all the land in HK to the people, property prices drop, taxes have to rise, Asian HNWI families pull their capital out of HK en masse, the financial investment market in HK collapses overnight, interests rates skyrocket, people lose their jobs, investment plummets. How does that further the standard of living of the average HK resident, exactly? Whats wrong with keeping business profits high if the HK economy depends on that business-friendly environment to thrive?

I love being threatened with a good time.

Most of the Pan-Dems aren't even socialists lol. Just regular centrist liberals and, at most, center-left social democrats and democratic socialists.

Again, "businesses should be able to control society" is just the absolute weirdest hill you can die on.

[Novus America]

Again, "businesses should have a more powerful say in how Hong Kong is run" is the absolute weirdest hill to die on.

The aim is to maintain the power structures that pro-Beijjng elements in power, keep business profits high and keep poor people suffering through high costs of living. Nothing more.

Get rid of the functional constituencies. What happens tomorrow? A wave of left-wing socialists in the pro-democracy camp sweep the LegCo, they sell off all the land in HK to the people, property prices drop, taxes have to rise, Asian HNWI families pull their capital out of HK en masse, the financial investment market in HK collapses overnight, interests rates skyrocket, people lose their jobs, investment plummets. How does that further the standard of living of the average HK resident, exactly? Whats wrong with keeping business profits high if the HK economy depends on that business-friendly environment to thrive?

Are you familiar with the phrase broken record?

[Purgatio]

Get rid of the functional constituencies. What happens tomorrow? A wave of left-wing socialists in the pro-democracy camp sweep the LegCo, they sell off all the land in HK to the people, property prices drop, taxes have to rise, Asian HNWI families pull their capital out of HK en masse, the financial investment market in HK collapses overnight, interests rates skyrocket, people lose their jobs, investment plummets. How does that further the standard of living of the average HK resident, exactly? Whats wrong with keeping business profits high if the HK economy depends on that business-friendly environment to thrive?

Are you familiar with the phrase broken record?

If it's right, it's right.

[Bombadil]

That's a very dangerous way of thinking and partly why HK has such terrible inequality - the ideal is to create a healthy balanced society not a highly stratified, unequal society, and that's why one person, one vote is important.

Yet if that's really the way you think then there's no arguing here.

Whatever the inequality in HK, you can't deny HK is a wealthy and developed city, and ultimately I think that's far more important than class envy or trying to compare rich and poor to no end. How is infrastructure in HK? Or the median income? Pretty good I'd say, especially to most of Asia.

Sure.. and that's the result of your business oriented model, a nice life for the haves.. HK is among the highest on the inequality index in the world. The ideal is a healthy and balanced economy, not one geared strongly to those who already have money.

However that's really not the main concern, the main concern is to retain our basic freedoms and secure those promised to us. The result is a more representative government that doesn't simply bow to the wishes of the CCP and business elite.

[Purgatio]

Get rid of the functional constituencies. What happens tomorrow? A wave of left-wing socialists in the pro-democracy camp sweep the LegCo, they sell off all the land in HK to the people, property prices drop, taxes have to rise, Asian HNWI families pull their capital out of HK en masse, the financial investment market in HK collapses overnight, interests rates skyrocket, people lose their jobs, investment plummets. How does that further the standard of living of the average HK resident, exactly? Whats wrong with keeping business profits high if the HK economy depends on that business-friendly environment to thrive?

I love being threatened with a good time.

Most of the Pan-Dems aren't even socialists lol. Just regular centrist liberals and, at most, center-left social democrats and democratic socialists.

Again, "businesses should be able to control society" is just the absolute weirdest hill you can die on.

Unemployment and recession is a good time? You've destroyed a vital sector of HK economy, you think there won't be repercussions on the average person when HK's prosperity is shot to dust?

[Pasong Tirad]

I love being threatened with a good time.

Most of the Pan-Dems aren't even socialists lol. Just regular centrist liberals and, at most, center-left social democrats and democratic socialists.

Again, "businesses should be able to control society" is just the absolute weirdest hill you can die on.

Unemployment and recession is a good time? You've destroyed a vital sector of HK economy, you think there won't be repercussions on the average person when HK's prosperity is shot to dust?

Yeah you keep telling yourself that. Xi Jinping appreciates your support to... *checks note* ...keeping regular citizens from voting for their executive and giving a handful of people a disproportionate amount of power. Real fine work you're doing for thr billionaires.

[Purgatio]

HK is by far one of the most prosperous financial hubs for capital investment in all of Asia, they have their competitors but when an Asian HNWI family wealth manager is choosing how to diversify a family portfolio, there will always be a substantial chunk of investments parked in HK, because that's the kind of reputation HK has in the investment community.

And the idea that protectionism is in China's interests is bizarre given that China joining the WTO and lowering tariffs generally coincided with rapid GDP growth from China. Globalisation and free trade is a win-win scenario, comparative advantages and what not.

But the more important point is that I'm not pro-CCP or pro-PRC because if you want me to criticise China there's a lot I can criticise - the non-compliance with WTO panels rulings on issues like rare earth exports, lack of sufficiently strong IP laws, controls on foreign capital inflows and outflows, etc., belying any suggestion that I think everything the PRC does is wonderful. It's not, but that doesn't mean I have to suddenly love the HK Rioters either.

The PRC’s “free trade” is entirely one way. The joined the WTO just to get more access to foreign markets but not allow too much access to theirs.
The PRC is mercantilist. And mercantilism works.
Why are the countries with the most free trade growing much slower than the mercantilist ones?

The most successful major economies have been mercantilist.

Otherwise you just keep repeating yourself. It is not going to convince anyone to just repeat the same thing.

And yes, I get you think the PRC economy is not neoliberal enough. But you still give zero shits about human rights. The problem is that you are not criticizing the PRC for the worst things it does, and criticizing it for all the wrong reasons.

Bransetter's China's Embrace of Globalization meticulously documented the impact of China's joining of the WTO - foreign access to China's market skyrocketed over the next few years, the national treatment rules and MFN rules led to a lowering of barriers to the Chinese financial services industry, retail, insurance, telecommunications etc.

I definitely don't think China complies with all the treaty obligations in the Marrakesh Agreement, in particular IP rules in the TRIPS Agreement and bans on quantitative restrictions on trade in the GATT 1994, but you are swinging to the other extreme and suggesting China joining the WTO had zero effect on trade liberalisation. That's just not true. Accession to the WTO led to a rapid increase in foreign access to the Chinese market, I wish that foreign access were liberalised even more and I think full Chinese compliance with the WTO as legally-required of them should happen tomorrow, but to suggest WTO accession had no impact on Chinese trade liberalisation is just false.

[Purgatio]

Unemployment and recession is a good time? You've destroyed a vital sector of HK economy, you think there won't be repercussions on the average person when HK's prosperity is shot to dust?

Yeah you keep telling yourself that. Xi Jinping appreciates your support to... *checks note* ...keeping regular citizens from voting for their executive and giving a handful of people a disproportionate amount of power. Real fine work you're doing for thr billionaires.

The HNWI families who park their capital in HK aren't billionaires, they are millionaires. For example, Citibank a few years back rolled out Citigold Private Client in many Asian countries, like HK and Singapore, to allow HNWI families (net worth of a million in investible assets) to have personalised asset portfolio management from Citigold wealth managers, and as I've said, a lot of that capital goes to HK and boosts the HK economy. So two errors on your part - 1) millionares, more so than billionares, and 2) if they pull out all that capital tomorrow, the HK economy crashes as their financial sector collapses, and everyone there suffers, is that what you want?

[Pasong Tirad]

Frankly I'm damn proud this little city of 8M is standing up for the right to free speech and universal suffrage against a CCP controlled nation of 1.3B. Frankly it's astounding.

I'm ashamed of those who purport to stand for such values yet stand by. just yesterday Arsenal FC apologised to China for comments by a player about the situation in Xinjiang saying they do not get involved in politics, yet made no comment on another player saying 'Fuck Boris Johnson'.

Everyday there's examples of blatant hypocrisy.

The simple fact is that the ordinary people of HK have zero representation. Did Carrie Lam offer to meet with the Democratic winners in the recent election to find a way forward? No, she offered jobs to those who lost and apologised to them saying it was unfair they'd lost.

All solidarity with the people of Hong Kong. If Hong Kong truly were a democratic society they would institute one person one vote in a proportionally representative electoral system that allows all voters to choose their head of the executive and doesn't give rich sectors of society a disproportionate amount of power in the legislative proceas.

[Pasong Tirad]

Yeah you keep telling yourself that. Xi Jinping appreciates your support to... *checks note* ...keeping regular citizens from voting for their executive and giving a handful of people a disproportionate amount of power. Real fine work you're doing for thr billionaires.

The HNWI families who park their capital in HK aren't billionaires, they are millionaires. For example, Citibank a few years back rolled out Citigold Private Client in many Asian countries, like HK and Singapore, to allow HNWI families (net worth of a million in investible assets) to have personalised asset portfolio management from Citigold wealth managers, and as I've said, a lot of that capital goes to HK and boosts the HK economy. So two errors on your part - 1) millionares, more so than billionares, and 2) if they pull out all that capital tomorrow, the HK economy crashes as their financial sector collapses, and everyone there suffers, is that what you want?

Lol ok boomer

[Purgatio]

The HNWI families who park their capital in HK aren't billionaires, they are millionaires. For example, Citibank a few years back rolled out Citigold Private Client in many Asian countries, like HK and Singapore, to allow HNWI families (net worth of a million in investible assets) to have personalised asset portfolio management from Citigold wealth managers, and as I've said, a lot of that capital goes to HK and boosts the HK economy. So two errors on your part - 1) millionares, more so than billionares, and 2) if they pull out all that capital tomorrow, the HK economy crashes as their financial sector collapses, and everyone there suffers, is that what you want?

Lol ok boomer

What? I'm 21.