Thread: The View, from China

I feel a bit more sorry for the +1mm people who have died of Covid in the US tbh.

Originally Posted by OhOh

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant is as Deadly as Previous Waves After Adjusting for Vaccinations, Demographics, and Comorbidities

Well fuck, no wonder the chinkies are panicking.

Why did this Florida Man leave China after 10 years, and go live in Richmond BC (with his Chinese wife)-

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said recently that it "would not be legal now" for the US to seize Russian government assets to pay for Ukraine reconstruction. However, Yellen's words are, perhaps, not the end of an eye-catching controversy about whether to seize Russian assets; it could be the beginning of a new discussion about how to legally seize those assets.

According to a Voice of America (VOA) report on April 29, The Biden administration is asking Congress for additional legal authority to make it easier for the US government to seize Russian government and "oligarch" assets and transfer the proceeds to Ukraine. The news came after some European politicians suggested their countries could use seized Russian assets to rebuild a devastated Ukraine.

Yellen was quoted as saying that it's very natural "we will look to Russia to help pay at least a portion of the price," but it doesn't seem she wants frozen Russian assets to play a role in Ukraine reconstruction. According to Reuters, US Treasury officials have expressed concerns about setting precedents and eroding other countries' confidence in holding their central bank assets in the US. We believe Yellen is very aware of the severity of the problem. It seems there is a deliberate "good cop, bad cop" strategy in place - the White House plays an active role in calling for seizing Russian assets, in a bid to comfort its allies in Europe, while Yellen tries to comfort the market with a rational voice that helps to persuade investors it's still safe to hold their assets in the US.

Their little trick is crystal clear for international investors and should be condemned. As a result of unilateral sanctions, the US has frozen tens of billions worth of assets belonging to Russians and their government. If foreign assets - public and private - can be frozen in a split second by a reserve-currency country with selfish political interests, politicians should not even waste their time to claim that it's safe for people to hold their assets in the country. US credibility in the economic world was undermined by its decision to freeze Russian assets via unilateral sanctions. Even if the US transfers the proceeds to Ukraine, freezing the assets has been enough to make people lose trust in the country.

This adds to the evidence that the US is no longer a safe place to store reserves. The US has global financial hegemony, but such hegemony is two-way. The US needs to provide services to the world, and depends on the world's support. If the US abuses its position to use sanctions as a geopolitical tool against rivals, it will be the death knell for its financial hegemony. Sanctions on Russia's financial system, such as the freezing of the central bank's reserves, will probably become a turning-point for US financial hegemony.

A large portion of US Treasury bonds are foreign-owned. As more countries reduce their holdings of US Treasury bonds, it's understandable that Yellen wants to alleviate tensions caused by a collapse in the US' reputation, but her efforts are doomed to fail. With unilateral sanctions, the US is bringing the world back to the era of a lawless jungle. Now, more people are worried about the security of their assets in the US. If the US goes a step further in seizing foreign assets, US credibility will be completely broken.

It is difficult for the US to come up with unilateral sanctions that only harm Russia, or harm Russia more than the US. Thus, Washington needs to think about what to do next. The world is also witnessing a profound shake-up of its traditional patterns as countries think about how to avoid the spillover effects of US unilateral sanctions.

Unilateral sanctions add to evidence that it’s no longer safe to hold assets in US - Global Times

In fairness, a lot of chinkies would probably prefer to top themselves than live under Mr. Shithole's miserable rule.

Made-in-China Penfolds Wine Will Dodge Crippling Import Tariffs

• Treasury Wine says bottles to go on sale in China by year-end
• Punitive tariffs have sent Australia’s wine exports tumbling

By
Angus Whitley

FULL- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-18/made-in-china-penfolds-wine-will-dodge-crippling-import-tariffs


Treasury wines is Australia's biggest wine producer, and Penfolds is probably our most iconic brand. Lets see if a bit of aussie knowhow can finally get China to produce decent wine! I mean they've got people in space stations, more high speed rail than the rest of the world combined- but their wine is shit!

Originally Posted by sabang

I feel a bit more sorry for the +1mm people who have died of Covid in the US tbh.

Do you mean one million (1m)? You have confused the number of deaths (1m) with either the circumference of your brain or the length of your dick (1mm). Or both.

Thanks for your bovine contribution to this thread hughie. Ganbei.


How to Say Cheers in Chinese





The default toast in China is ganbei (sounds like: “gon bay”) which literally means "dry cup." And unlike in the West, you'll be expected to empty your cup after each toast given, or at least give it your best effort.

If you're lucky enough to hear a rare banbei during the session, be relieved: you can safely drink only half of your glass without chiding.

A few tips for communication in China will certainly come in handy as languages begin to blur. These useful Chinese phrases will certainly come in handy for winning a few smiles.

Is It OK Not to Drink?

If everyone else at the table is drinking, you'll most likely be put under tremendous pressure to participate — particularly in business settings. Unless you're a monk or pregnant, you'll be expected to give a concerted effort to match glass for glass with your hosts. An even more nightmarish scenario involves matching drink for drink with a company's elected drinking representatives. Yes, that's a thing!

If you choose not to decline, you'll need to make your intentions to abstain clear from the beginning. The choice in many scenarios is pretty much all in or nothing at all. Drinking sporadically — skipping a toast here and there — or drinking just a little is usually socially unacceptable.

Although you may get chided a little for not being able to keep up, good humor and getting a laugh from the group go a long way when drinking in China. Use humor to your advantage; it can be your superpower. The group will love that you can take a joke and laugh at yourself!

How to Get Out of Drinking in China

The Chinese often use little white lies on such occasions to save face; you can do the same. Some valid excuses you could give to avoid drinking altogether include health problems, instructions from a doctor, medications, or even religious reasons such as your own fabricated version of Lent. Women are often excused from drinking more easily than men but may participate as much as they wish. Regardless, those who don't drink will receive plenty of good-natured chiding.

With plenty of attention as a laowai (foreigner) and others possibly filling your glass between toasts, don't expect that you can simply knock back half-full shots for each ganbei. As guest of honor, you'll have smiling friends queuing to refill your glass for you.

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by sabang

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said recently that it "would not be legal now" for the US to seize Russian government assets to pay for Ukraine reconstruction. However, Yellen's words are, perhaps, not the end of an eye-catching controversy about whether to seize Russian assets; it could be the beginning of a new discussion about how to legally seize those assets.

According to a Voice of America (VOA) report on April 29, The Biden administration is asking Congress for additional legal authority to make it easier for the US government to seize Russian government and "oligarch" assets and transfer the proceeds to Ukraine. The news came after some European politicians suggested their countries could use seized Russian assets to rebuild a devastated Ukraine.

Yellen was quoted as saying that it's very natural "we will look to Russia to help pay at least a portion of the price," but it doesn't seem she wants frozen Russian assets to play a role in Ukraine reconstruction. According to Reuters, US Treasury officials have expressed concerns about setting precedents and eroding other countries' confidence in holding their central bank assets in the US. We believe Yellen is very aware of the severity of the problem. It seems there is a deliberate "good cop, bad cop" strategy in place - the White House plays an active role in calling for seizing Russian assets, in a bid to comfort its allies in Europe, while Yellen tries to comfort the market with a rational voice that helps to persuade investors it's still safe to hold their assets in the US.

Their little trick is crystal clear for international investors and should be condemned. As a result of unilateral sanctions, the US has frozen tens of billions worth of assets belonging to Russians and their government. If foreign assets - public and private - can be frozen in a split second by a reserve-currency country with selfish political interests, politicians should not even waste their time to claim that it's safe for people to hold their assets in the country. US credibility in the economic world was undermined by its decision to freeze Russian assets via unilateral sanctions. Even if the US transfers the proceeds to Ukraine, freezing the assets has been enough to make people lose trust in the country.

This adds to the evidence that the US is no longer a safe place to store reserves. The US has global financial hegemony, but such hegemony is two-way. The US needs to provide services to the world, and depends on the world's support. If the US abuses its position to use sanctions as a geopolitical tool against rivals, it will be the death knell for its financial hegemony. Sanctions on Russia's financial system, such as the freezing of the central bank's reserves, will probably become a turning-point for US financial hegemony.

A large portion of US Treasury bonds are foreign-owned. As more countries reduce their holdings of US Treasury bonds, it's understandable that Yellen wants to alleviate tensions caused by a collapse in the US' reputation, but her efforts are doomed to fail. With unilateral sanctions, the US is bringing the world back to the era of a lawless jungle. Now, more people are worried about the security of their assets in the US. If the US goes a step further in seizing foreign assets, US credibility will be completely broken.

It is difficult for the US to come up with unilateral sanctions that only harm Russia, or harm Russia more than the US. Thus, Washington needs to think about what to do next. The world is also witnessing a profound shake-up of its traditional patterns as countries think about how to avoid the spillover effects of US unilateral sanctions.

Unilateral sanctions add to evidence that it’s no longer safe to hold assets in US - Global Times

Please read the thread title and stop obfuscating.

Gawd you are Thick. The View from China (via Global Times):-

Unilateral sanctions add to evidence that it’s no longer safe to hold assets in US

Originally Posted by sabang

The purpose of this thread is to present a Chinese perspective on things- but a 'reasonable' Chinese perspective. I'm about as interested in Chinese supremacists as I am in right wing bigots from the West.

I just read this OP,
'reasonable' perspective ?
Please explain what a "reasonable" perspective is.

#1373 and still going strong- now that's a reasonable perspective! I had no idea a China thread would have this much legs, but it has obviously got a few people triggered.
And lets face it, the quite spectacular rise of China is the biggest story of the current century.

It's amusing really. He genuinely thinks people are ripping the piss out of him because they are "triggered".

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

He genuinely thinks people are ripping the piss out of him because they are "triggered".

Utterly laughable. He is a glutton for punishment and humiliation I will give him that.

It rather looks like the joke is on the Boneheads.

Washington is desperately trying to build military and economic alliances to ward off a rising China, whose economy is expected by 2028 to overtake that of the United States, according to the UK’s Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR).

No Way Out but War - The Chris Hedges Report


Nice article, if you can bear to read it. Probably easier to carry on predicting the mythical collapse of China instead. But of course, not the USA.

That is pretty much my view too. While it presents challenges, a Multipolar world order is no bad thing. I find the American view on this inevitable development downright churlish- and you certainly see it reflected in this thread!- but that might be viewed as somewhat inevitable too. Certainly, I think when viewed in a long term historical context, the second half of the 20th century was a bit of an anomaly- made possible by the self destruction of Europe in two world wars, and an isolationist, backward China. It's a good thing the US was there actually- and it still is!

Originally Posted by sabang

That is pretty much my view too. While it presents challenges, a Multipolar world order is no bad thing. I find the American view on this inevitable development downright churlish- and you certainly see it reflected in this thread!- but that might be viewed as somewhat inevitable too. Certainly, I think when viewed in a long term historical context, the second half of the 20th century was a bit of an anomaly- made possible by the self destruction of Europe in two world wars, and an isolationist, backward China. It's a good thing the US was there actually- and it still is!

Not all going China’s way according to the World Bank.

China Overview: Development news, research, data | World Bank

Originally Posted by sabang

The seats of Chisholm in Melbourne, Tangney in Perth, Reid in Sydney, and Bennelong in northern Sydney have just swung to Labor. What these seats have in common is that people with Chinese heritage comprise a large percentage of the population.





One of the key election campaign agendas of the Coalition was national security, manifesting in a consistently hawkish, anti-China rhetoric. It is telling that Scott Morrison, in his speech conceding defeat, made a point of singling out defence forces, security and intelligence agencies and thanking them for keeping the country safe.

It’s hard to imagine that the Coalition didn’t foresee the risk of alienating Chinese voters by its consistent stance on the “China threat”. And yet, the party strategists must have decided to take a gamble, convinced that maintaining their long-standing national security agenda as a key element of their electoral pitch would be likelier to gain more votes/seats from their base in the wider Australian community than they would lose among Chinese Australians.



The Liberals’ anti-China rhetoric cost them votes and, likely, key seats (msn.com)


Oh dear. They vote too. 'Bye scomo.


Meet Australia's new Foreign Minister, Penny Wong-





Good South Aussie girl.

Penny Wong is Malaysian by birth. Your implied connection fails again.

POTUS lets rip when speaking about China, VOA is not amused. White House calls POTUS out.

Apologies if MK has posted this battle previously.

'Strategic Ambiguity' on Taiwan Apparent as White House Walks Back Biden Comments

October 23, 2021 5:43 AM

"WHITE HOUSE — White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Friday appeared to walk back President Joe Biden's statement on Thursday that the United States was committed to defending Taiwan should it come under Chinese attack.

"The president was not announcing any change in our policy, nor has he made a decision to change our policy," Psaki said during a White House news briefing. "Our defense relationship with Taiwan is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act."

The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act states that the U.S. will provide arms for Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. It does not say the U.S. would intervene militarily to protect Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.

Psaki's statement stands in contradiction to Biden's comment at a CNN town hall Thursday night. When asked if the U.S. would come to the defense of Taiwan, Biden said, "Yes, we have a commitment to do that."

When asked by VOA whether the president simply misspoke or is sending a signal to Beijing, Psaki reiterated that "his policy has not changed." In what appeared to be an attempt to calm increased tensions following the president's comment, she echoed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's statement earlier Friday: "Nobody wants to see cross-strait issues come to blows, certainly not President Biden, and there's no reason that it should."

The conflicting statements may well be in line with Washington's long-standing policy of "strategic ambiguity" on defending Taiwan. Still, Beijing, which considers Taiwan a breakaway province, warned Washington to refrain from encouraging its independence.

"We urge the U.S. to earnestly abide by the one-China principle and stipulations in the three China-U.S. joint communiques, be prudent with its words and actions on the Taiwan question, and avoid sending wrong signals to the 'Taiwan independence' separatist forces, lest it should seriously damage China-U.S. relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin earlier Friday.
Wang reiterated that "there is no room for China to compromise or make concessions" when it comes to sovereignty and territorial integrity.
U.S.-China relations have been strained amid Beijing's increased military activity in the Taiwan Strait and its recent hypersonic missile test.

Strategic ambiguity

This is not the first time Biden said the U.S. would defend Taiwan if necessary. During an August interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, Biden said the U.S. made a "sacred commitment" to respond to action against NATO allies, "same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan."

The defense of Taiwan, unlike that of formal treaty allies Japan and South Korea, is not explicitly stated by the U.S. After each of Biden's remarks on defending the island, his administration has walked it back.

While Biden may not intend to signal a change in the U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan, his statements suggest that U.S. policy may have shifted informally toward a firmer commitment to Taiwan's security.

The comments may be off the cuff, but they are telling, said Matthew Kroenig, deputy director of the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. "If China invaded Taiwan, it would be up to the president to make the final decision about what we should do, and it seems that Biden's instinct is to defend Taiwan."

Biden's remarks may also be intended to signal that the U.S. military option is not off the table, said Max Bergmann, a senior fellow at Center for American Progress.

"I think it was a clear and smart warning sign from the president to China."

continus at:

https://www.voanews.com/a/strategic-ambiguity-on-taiwan-apparent-as-white-house-walks-back-biden-comments-teaser-after-the-president-says-the-us-is-committed-to-defending-the-island-beijing-warns-the-us-against-encouraging-taiwan-independence-/6282502.html

Australian firms pin hopes on new Albanese government for recovered ties with China


Experts urge govt to reassess relations with Beijing


By GT staff reporters Published: May 23, 2022 09:03 PM


"Australian businesses are seeking closer trade and economic ties with China, their largest market and the one with the largest potential, as they hope for better times and more normal relations under the administration of Anthony Albanese, who has become the new prime minister of Australia.

Bilateral business and trade activities have been disrupted for a long time, as a result of the Morrison government's hostile policy toward China, and businesses are eager for a turnaround. Meanwhile, a key Australian business chamber has called for improved relations in its latest survey of members in China.

At a regular press conference on Monday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin congratulated Albanese on winning the election, while extending expectations for a healthy and stable bilateral relationship.

The healthy and stable development of China-Australia ties is in line with the fundamental interests and common aspirations of the two peoples, and is also conducive to peace, stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region, Wang said.

"We must see regular high-level dialogue re-established. This is where, as a business community, we would urge both governments to take advantage of this opportunity to work far more closely than we have seen in recent years,"

Nick Coyle, CEO of China-Australia Chamber of Commerce (AustCham China), told the Global Times, speaking about expectations among AustCham members for the improvement of bilateral relations under the new Australian government."

Continues at:

Australian firms pin hopes on new Albanese government for recovered ties with China - Global Times

Fat cats don't mind doing business with blood on their hands. They'll trouser any cash, chinky, russian, they won't care.