Hong Kong

[Genivaria]

We did refute it, the problem is this is a values based thing, not a purely objective one.
The issue is your have very different values than we do.

Then that's not refuting, that's called a difference of opinion. We value and prioritize different things.

Yes you value your 50 cent paycheck whereas we value human welfare and dignity.

[Speyland]

And there's corporate lobbying in the US and in the EU. You can call it corruption pejoratively if you want but what it is is ensuring economic policies don't destroy the economic by decimating commercial interests. Political dynasties are stable investments, they are ways to ensure pro-business policies endure for the future.

Because it is corruption, the difference is that you support putting the corrupt elements in charge.
You want the nuts to run the insane asylum.

You mean propaganda, right?

[Genivaria]

Because it is corruption, the difference is that you support putting the corrupt elements in charge.
You want the nuts to run the insane asylum.

You mean propaganda, right?

......What?

[Speyland]

Does it have to do with communism?

I don't know what you think communism is but that's not it.

I see.

[Novus America]

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.

The barriers were lowered by still remain high, meanwhile other countries dropped their barriers far more than the PRC did. So it still gave the PRC the benefit of having higher barriers (also state backed dumping) giving the PRC the advantage.

The PRC is still very much mercantilist.

[Pasong Tirad]

Then that's not refuting, that's called a difference of opinion. We value and prioritize different things.

Yes you value your 50 cent paycheck whereas we value human welfare and dignity.

Tbf I don't think he's wumao. Just venturing into ancap territory with its desire for businesses to have more and more power in society.

[Purgatio]

You're aware that the Founding Fathers limited suffrage to those who owned land right? Precisely because Hamilton in The Federalist Papers said exactly what I am saying, that democracy is about giving people who have a stake in the country's future a voice in deciding what that future will look like. If you have less of a stake in the nation's economy and future trajectory because you own no wealth, you should still get a vote of course, but those with a stake in the country greater than their mere numbers need some representation too. Nothing wrong with that, just democracy, as the Framers themselves would have understood it btw.

No shit Sherlock, they also kept slavery legal.
You're assertion that a rich person has a higher stake in their nation than a poor person is stupid, vapid, and ignorant.

It's literally just objective fact, though. A rich person objectively has a larger stake in the governance of the country, who is in charge has very little impact on a person with little wealth, little assets and who is unemployed and without any stable employment. Someone who pays taxes cares about how high taxes will be and wants fiscal responsibility. Someone who runs a business is affected directly by commercial regulations and contract law. Someone who owns wealth cares about property rights and capital controls and whether there's a stable economy. In contrast, the poor and downtrodden generally stay poor when the economy does well or does badly, their fortunes might change a little bit, sure, and they might get a few handouts here and there, but the amount of impact laws have on a rich person's wealth and asset security is gigantic compared to the impact it has on a poor person. So yeah, its simply objectively true that the rich have a bigger stake in a country's future than a poor person. Calling it "stupid, vapid, and ignorant" doesn't make it less true, it just means you believe it is "stupid, vapid, and ignorant", nothing more.

[Bombadil]

I wonder how long it will truly be before China drops the desguise, and takes direct rule of the city.

To be honest they already have, we probably just didn't realise it. Take the police for example, they all have to attend regular indoctrination classes in Beijing. We kind of knew this but I don't think we realised how much it has caused the police to view ordinary HKers as 'others' to be assimilated into China. We've known the government is directly controlled but didn't think they would completely ignore the people's wishes, not even give a nod to them.

We're beginning to suspect the judiciary in the lower courts are also co-opted given the language they've used in sentencing.

There's a plan to subject teachers to indoctrination next, they have long wanted to change the curriculum at school to include patriotism classes. Major companies including HSBC, Cathay and others have already swept changed management to be more po-Beijing, let alone quasi-government bodies such as HKTB.

There's already direct rule frankly and most institutions have been co-opted and indoctrinated, or at least people by those who toe the line.

[Purgatio]

Yes you value your 50 cent paycheck whereas we value human welfare and dignity.

Tbf I don't think he's wumao. Just venturing into ancap territory with its desire for businesses to have more and more power in society.

An-Cap is oxymoronic. I believe in a prosperous economy where people can acquire and accumulate wealth, use it to support their children through inheritance, and where those property rights are stable. For that to exist, there needs to be Law and Order and proper policing. Anything that threatens that Law and Order, like the Hong Kong Rioters, is bad in my view.

[Genivaria]

No shit Sherlock, they also kept slavery legal.
You're assertion that a rich person has a higher stake in their nation than a poor person is stupid, vapid, and ignorant.

It's literally just objective fact, though. A rich person objectively has a larger stake in the governance of the country, who is in charge has very little impact on a person with little wealth, little assets and who is unemployed and without any stable employment. Someone who pays taxes cares about how high taxes will be and wants fiscal responsibility. Someone who runs a business is affected directly by commercial regulations and contract law. Someone who owns wealth cares about property rights and capital controls and whether there's a stable economy. In contrast, the poor and downtrodden generally stay poor when the economy does well or does badly, their fortunes might change a little bit, sure, and they might get a few handouts here and there, but the amount of impact laws have on a rich person's wealth and asset security is gigantic compared to the impact it has on a poor person. So yeah, its simply objectively true that the rich have a bigger stake in a country's future than a poor person. Calling it "stupid, vapid, and ignorant" doesn't make it less true, it just means you believe it is "stupid, vapid, and ignorant", nothing more.

You say 'objective fact' and provide nothing to support it so don't be surprised when your fucking opinion is dismissed.
If you think that poor and homeless have no stake in taxes or fiscal laws than boy are you in for a shock when you actually go out in the real world.

[Novus America]

We did refute it, the problem is this is a values based thing, not a purely objective one.
The issue is your have very different values than we do.

Then that's not refuting, that's called a difference of opinion. We value and prioritize different things.

It is refuting from the perspective of our values system.
Which is of course completely alien to yours.

But yes this will go nowhere. Your values and perspective are completely different.

[Pasong Tirad]

Tbf I don't think he's wumao. Just venturing into ancap territory with its desire for businesses to have more and more power in society.

An-Cap is oxymoronic. I believe in a prosperous economy where people can acquire and accumulate wealth, use it to support their children through inheritance, and where those property rights are stable. For that to exist, there needs to be Law and Order and proper policing. Anything that threatens that Law and Order, like the Hong Kong Rioters, is bad in my view.

Ok

[Purgatio]

Then that's not refuting, that's called a difference of opinion. We value and prioritize different things.

Yes you value your 50 cent paycheck whereas we value human welfare and dignity.

All this shows is you lack the maturity to debate without political nicknaming. The irony is that a real 'wumao' tends to do the same thing you are doing, getting down in the dirt and accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being an evil American who is getting paid by the Americans or the CIA to spread anti-Chinese propaganda. I'm not saying that because I have the maturity to realize this is just a genuine political disagreement between people who value different things in a society.

Your inability to grow up is honestly really sad.

[Novus America]

Yes you value your 50 cent paycheck whereas we value human welfare and dignity.

Tbf I don't think he's wumao. Just venturing into ancap territory with its desire for businesses to have more and more power in society.

Although he is also an authoritarian. Free economy, but not political freedom.

[Purgatio]

It's literally just objective fact, though. A rich person objectively has a larger stake in the governance of the country, who is in charge has very little impact on a person with little wealth, little assets and who is unemployed and without any stable employment. Someone who pays taxes cares about how high taxes will be and wants fiscal responsibility. Someone who runs a business is affected directly by commercial regulations and contract law. Someone who owns wealth cares about property rights and capital controls and whether there's a stable economy. In contrast, the poor and downtrodden generally stay poor when the economy does well or does badly, their fortunes might change a little bit, sure, and they might get a few handouts here and there, but the amount of impact laws have on a rich person's wealth and asset security is gigantic compared to the impact it has on a poor person. So yeah, its simply objectively true that the rich have a bigger stake in a country's future than a poor person. Calling it "stupid, vapid, and ignorant" doesn't make it less true, it just means you believe it is "stupid, vapid, and ignorant", nothing more.

You say 'objective fact' and provide nothing to support it so don't be surprised when your fucking opinion is dismissed.
If you think that poor and homeless have no stake in taxes or fiscal laws than boy are you in for a shock when you actually go out in the real world.

The American economy crashes tomorrow. Whose life changes more? The unemployed and homeless person who already owns nothing and is not even scraping by? Or the wealthy family with billions in an estate and whose family business or portfolio will depreciate in value dramatically?

So, again, as a matter of objective fact, which family has the bigger stake in whether the country's economic governance and fiscal stewardship is sound and stable? The homeless family that owns nothing and is already unemployed, or the family with an estate worth billions like the Kochs, the Mercers, the Mars family?

[Purgatio]

Then that's not refuting, that's called a difference of opinion. We value and prioritize different things.

It is refuting from the perspective of our values system.
Which is of course completely alien to yours.

But yes this will go nowhere. Your values and perspective are completely different.

Yeap fair enough, I agree with this.

[Genivaria]

Yes you value your 50 cent paycheck whereas we value human welfare and dignity.

All this shows is you lack the maturity to debate without political nicknaming. The irony is that a real 'wumao' tends to do the same thing you are doing, getting down in the dirt and accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being an evil American who is getting paid by the Americans or the CIA to spread anti-Chinese propaganda. I'm not saying that because I have the maturity to realize this is just a genuine political disagreement between people who value different things in a society.

Your inability to grow up is honestly really sad.

That's the natural result of your position, you want to disenfranchise everyone but the rich and give them complete control over society, don't get angry when you're called out on it.

[Purgatio]

All this shows is you lack the maturity to debate without political nicknaming. The irony is that a real 'wumao' tends to do the same thing you are doing, getting down in the dirt and accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being an evil American who is getting paid by the Americans or the CIA to spread anti-Chinese propaganda. I'm not saying that because I have the maturity to realize this is just a genuine political disagreement between people who value different things in a society.

Your inability to grow up is honestly really sad.

That's the natural result of your position, you want to disenfranchise everyone but the rich and give them complete control over society, don't get angry when you're called out on it.

Again, your inability to understand that it is in fact possible to "call me out" and disagree with my opinions without unsubstantiated allegations of being an 'wumao' is only more evidence of your inability to debate in a mature way. Literally everyone else in the thread who disagrees with me seems to manage it, except you. You need to grow up.

[Genivaria]

You say 'objective fact' and provide nothing to support it so don't be surprised when your fucking opinion is dismissed.
If you think that poor and homeless have no stake in taxes or fiscal laws than boy are you in for a shock when you actually go out in the real world.

The American economy crashes tomorrow. Whose life changes more? The unemployed and homeless person who already owns nothing and is not even scraping by? Or the wealthy family with billions in an estate and whose family business or portfolio will depreciate in value dramatically?

So, again, as a matter of objective fact, which family has the bigger stake in whether the country's economic governance and fiscal stewardship is sound and stable? The homeless family that owns nothing and is already unemployed, or the family with an estate worth billions like the Kochs, the Mercers, the Mars family?

The former as what little good they had in their lives utterly evaporate while the rich relocate.

[Speyland]

You mean propaganda, right?

......What?

I am trying to understand what you are saying.

[Genivaria]

That's the natural result of your position, you want to disenfranchise everyone but the rich and give them complete control over society, don't get angry when you're called out on it.

Again, your inability to understand that it is in fact possible to "call me out" and disagree with my opinions without unsubstantiated allegations of being an 'wumao' is only more evidence of your inability to debate in a mature way. Literally everyone else in the thread who disagrees with me seems to manage it, except you. You need to grow up.

Not really, you're just angry that you're being taken to task for your utterly inhumane statements, get over it.

[Pasong Tirad]

Again, your inability to understand that it is in fact possible to "call me out" and disagree with my opinions without unsubstantiated allegations of being an 'wumao' is only more evidence of your inability to debate in a mature way. Literally everyone else in the thread who disagrees with me seems to manage it, except you. You need to grow up.

Not really, you're just angry that you're being taken to task for your utterly inhumane statements, get over it.

"Businesses should have a stronger say in politics. Also political dynasties and corporate lobbying is good. Also one man one vote is less democratic than what I propose. Also the homeless deserve it."

"Lol fuck that"

"wHy CaN't YoU dEbAtE mE PrOpErLy?!?!"

[Purgatio]

The American economy crashes tomorrow. Whose life changes more? The unemployed and homeless person who already owns nothing and is not even scraping by? Or the wealthy family with billions in an estate and whose family business or portfolio will depreciate in value dramatically?

So, again, as a matter of objective fact, which family has the bigger stake in whether the country's economic governance and fiscal stewardship is sound and stable? The homeless family that owns nothing and is already unemployed, or the family with an estate worth billions like the Kochs, the Mercers, the Mars family?

The former as what little good they had in their lives utterly evaporate while the rich relocate.

With a substantially-reduced wealth. And no the former lose nothing because they had nothing to begin with. Whereas a functioning business like the Koch Industries losing access to a profitable market. So, yeah. Its a very big difference.

[Plzen]

Considering how much of a difference it makes to be a citizen of a developed country as opposed to a developing one when you don’t own property, and how little of a difference that makes when you’re a multi-millionaire, I question who really has a larger stake in the overall welfare of the society they live in.

[Purgatio]

Not really, you're just angry that you're being taken to task for your utterly inhumane statements, get over it.

"Businesses should have a stronger say in politics. Also political dynasties and corporate lobbying is good. Also one man one vote is less democratic than what I propose. Also the homeless deserve it."

"Lol fuck that"

"wHy CaN't YoU dEbAtE mE PrOpErLy?!?!"

....can you read? Like, can you? Not kidding, I'm actually asking for real.