Australian Politics Forum - China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Thinking Globally › China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6

China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead (Read 3949 times)

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13786
Gender: male

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #60 - Jun 27^th, 2024 at 2:34pm

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 2:37am:

They don't. They just have a problem with the United States (which is more "sub-Western" than "Western") due to the USA bombing their countries and killing innocent civilians. "Western" countries are the envy for many of those 4 to 5 billion people who earn no more than a third of what the average Americans earn. Central Americans like to move to places like the USA to get away from their failed states. But Asians, Middle Eastern, Arab and African people prefer to move to Europe.

All correct, except much of the non-"Western" world respects China's development model for having lifted more people out of poverty at a faster rate than any nation in history.

Quote:

No. I was suggesting that China remain China without the acquisition of Taiwan. Hong Kong is an autonomous state -- and they even have Olympians representing HK as a nation. Hong Kong has its problems of refugees moving to HK from mainland China. The refugees are trying to escape the suppressive China.

HK is an "autonomous" state, aka SAR of China.

And as for the Olympics:

(google)

"For any gold medal ceremony, the Hong Kong SAR flag is raised and the PRC national anthem is played, even in situations where athletes from China won silver or bronze, resulting in the Hong Kong SAR flag flying above that of China. This is permitted under the constitution promulgated by the PRC prior to the handover (specifically, Article 151, Chapter 7 of the Basic Law) [/i]

A smart move by the PRC, given strong separatist feelings among "democracy" ideologues ( a minority of the population) in HK.

But as for independence, you're dreamin'.

And not all Taiwanese want to secede from China, the secessionist DPP only holds 40% of the seats in Taiwan's parliament.

Quote:

Aha. We have a treasonable person called "thegreatdivide" here at OzPolitic. I get the feeling your stomach growls when a dog barks.

I certainly despise the "freedom or death" war-mongers who reject an effective international rules based order as envisioned by our own Doc Evatt in 1946, at the creation of the UN Charter "to save mankind from the scouge of war", but was rejected by the US and USSR who demanded access to the UNSC veto.

I'm with Assange, you can stick all your government ASIO "security" secrecy bs where the sun doesn't shine.

Quote:

And Uncle James would be rolling in his grave if he found out that we stood by and did nothing to trying and pressure China to back off Taiwan. I can imagine him shaking his head in disbelief if Australia lost trade with China with new deals struck with PNG.

Yeah, Uncle James was fighting in a war which resulted in the (bungled as noted above) creation of the UN. So now you want to stick you nose in China's domestic concerns, and risk WW3. Loser.

Quote:

I doubt that my daughters would participate in WW3, even though one of them is an army reservist.

Here you go, mindlessly, breezily speculating about WW3; you have no respect for life - except your own sorry a*se of course. Millions will die in WW3 (and Einstein warned the war after that would be fought with sticks and stones....).

Quote:

But, the likes of you (you CCP spokesperson) would lead us being overrun with worthless refugees from all over the world, so that wages would fall relative to the cost of living. Then the Chinese might want to bargain for better deals for our natural resources.

Er ...I though you were talking about WW3, not trade bargaining....

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 25042
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #61 - Jun 27^th, 2024 at 4:05pm

thegreatdivide,

You have to be one of the most mouthy posters with whom I have ever engaged a discussion. And you are very naive. What are you? 20 years old?

China was the epicentre of where the coronavirus started. If they were strict on lockdowns, as much as what Australia was with our lockdowns, then the virus would not have got out of China and into countries like Iran, Italy, Thailand, all within short time in early 2020.

Quote:

In contrast to China where the government welded doors shut

I did not believe you at first about that. But I looked it up and found it to be true. Still, millions of Chinese people would not have died from Covid19, if they indeed took drastic measures to stop the virus from spreading.

Quote:

How many died from Covid, in China?

Estimates range as high as 5 million. There were 5 million more deaths in China than the previous year before covid took hold in the year 2020. Some of those extra deaths could probably be attributed to covid. I would not be surprised if 2 million Chinese people died in the first year and the other 3 million died in the last 3 years from covid related illnesses. Heck, maybe Chinese authorities shot some of the infected to prevent further spread. Who knows? The Chinese stopped counting their dead a long time ago.

Quote:

Factually wrong: China reached it's greatest-ever extent as one country c.1750, under the Qing dynasty (including all of Mongolia).

China in 1750 might well be called "China". But it was not one country. China would have had a series of rulers during the 18th century. I will have to dust off my Modern History of China textbook I had back in the late 1990s and read up on this. But my memory of doing this subject 25 years ago has enough recollection that the ruler of the time had regional leaders who did their own thing.

I could imagine that 1750s China would have those in Beijing having little to no knowledge of what goes on 500 or more kilometres away. They would need messenger people to ride their way to the city to give them news about conflicts brewing. Not like today, where the high tech communications of China means that access to the internet is all that is needed to get whatever information the Chinese authorities need.

Quote:

"Chinatowns" never claimed sovereignty (aka 'colonization') over the host cities.

Have you ever been to Chinatown? Have you ever been to a suburb that has a high proportion of ethnic minorities. If you are white (which I doubt), you would find that people look at you with those "what the hell are you doing here?" facial expressions. The Chinese have had a reputation of buying up housing in Australia, no matter the cost. Have you got the feeling that maybe the Chinese are trying to get their people into Australia so that they could influence Australian decision making?

Quote:

Er....the Pentagon is stopping a Chinese "takeover" of Taiwan. China can live with it unless the US recognizes Taiwan as an independent natioin, then all bets would be off.

Then you'll have a chance to send your cannon-fodder offspring to the Taiwan Strait....

Oh come on. There must have been a number of times over the years that the USA has expressed that Taiwan must remain independent. And China has not snapped and invaded Taiwan yet. The Chinese military are too busy trying to suppress its own mainland citizens. It is a fight that they are losing bit by bit every year.

And if a war did break out between China and the United States, it would have to be China being the aggressor before you can claim that my daughter is going to fight as part of the navy personnel. Otherwise, stiff schitt to the USA.

Quote:

the US will break up before China: see my previous post to FD. The Soviet economy was never more than half that of the US, whereas China is much more powerful and rapidly approaching parity with the US.

You might have a point about the United States breaking into a few separate countries. But, maybe you took inspiration from that recent movie "Civil War". I would say that the United States is more "united" than you realise. The disparity of wealth is relatively more even in China than the USA. I might be wrong though. The richest 140 million Chinese people control about two-thirds of the wealth of China. Whereas 30 million Americans control about two-thirds of the wealth of the United States.

In any event, democracy is a big issue for both countries. The USA has democracy. But it is such a flawed democracy that just about every election since the year 2000 has been heavily disputed. The last federal election in the USA ended with protestors storming the Capitol. If China was to become democratic, we would probably see the dissolution of the country into manageable provinces so that the region can survive and prosper. Otherwise, I see China collapsing as one entity without democratic change.

Quote:

But China wanted to trade with us; things first turned sour in 2017 when Turnbull blocked Huawei at the behest of the Pentagon on trumped up "security' concerns, and Morrison cemented the ill-will with nuclear subs designed to prevent China's assertion of its (UN recognized) sovereignty over Taiwan.

Guess what, China is trying to assert its authority over Australian trade. They want better deals from Australia. Check Bobby's topic of Australia practically giving away our gas to China.

At this stage...

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 25042
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #62 - Jun 27^th, 2024 at 5:32pm

thegreatdivide,

Quote:

except much of the non-"Western" world respects China's development model for having lifted more people out of poverty at a faster rate than any nation in history.

There is nothing wrong with that statement. China implemented the one-child policy in 1978. The effects starting taking shape by the mid-1990s. When the problem arose of there being an inverted population pyramid starting to take shape, the authorities in China relaxed the rules to be two-child. Then it was three-children. Now, China, having a lower births per women rate than Australia's is now allowing their citizens to have as many children as they can afford. The only issue here is that women in China have had rights granted to them in the last few decades that they are deciding to limit their child numbers, and be career women.

China's population is falling and was overtaken by India as the world's most populous nation. With low birthrates and women being career minded in China, the economy is changing so that a higher standard of living is enabled. That is part of the reason why I think China will democratise and perhaps become several countries in future. China is a strong economy, but needs to be macromanaged as separate regional countries.

Quote:

I am siding with Assange, too. But Assange could have handle the dissemination of military footage much better. Perhaps not release the footage to the public without considering the ramifications.

As for Doc Evatt, I don't know much about him. But, I do know that 1946 was 78 years ago -- and Evatt has been dead since 1965. So, Mr Evatt is not around to defend himself or elaborate on whatever he is alleged to have said. Let us stick to things that happened in this century.

Quote:

Yeah, Uncle James was fighting in a war which resulted in the (bungled as noted above) creation of the UN. So now you want to stick you nose in China's domestic concerns, and risk WW3. Loser.

Phukken what??? You would be speakin' Japanese right now if it were not for the likes of my great-uncle and millions of other people taking action against the Axis Powers. Funny that you speak disparagingly against the United Nations. Realistically, it is full of white hating anti-Western representatives. I would have thought that they would be your darlings.

I am not going to do anything in regards to China's domestic affairs. China would spawn into something else by next decade, of their own accord.

Quote:

Einstein is a moron. There is no reason that a nuclear war will wipe out humanity so much between two warring factions. If the United States launches and detonates 100 nuclear weapons into China and China launches and detonates 100 nuclear weapons into the USA, both countries would be decimated. Their economies would be in tatters (life support). Both countries will have to rely on their regional towns and cities to function as part of the rebuild.

Australia would end up screwed with our economy losing two of our biggest trading partners. But we are not going to revert to sticks and stones as our weapons. We will be heavily involved in upgrading our military in every area. And the psychology of our military personnel will take on the demeanour of Kyle Reese's and Sarah Connor's.

And given that I have saved people's lives in the past and have been recognised as having saved people from near death, I find it an insult that you would think I have no respect for life. Nuclear warfare is out of the question in my opinion. We need to avoid it. Especially if we start to deprogram the brainwashed idiots like you so that your disillusionment about the world will make you a better person. I cannot believe that you are so naive. Even a teenager would know better than you.

At this stage...

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49963
At my desk.

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #63 - Jun 28^th, 2024 at 9:44am

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 12:44pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 4:14pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 12:26pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2024 at 5:15am:

Quote:

Er... no, it was the in part command economy which enabled China to become the world's factory.

It was the command economy that starved 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally.

Your blind, ugly 'reward according to ability alone' ideology creates your fraudulent narrative "trying to feed them all equally" . (Marx said "from each according to abilty, to each according to need"; you of course worship the reverse).

I already exposed your error some posts back, your blind, despicable fraudulent ideology: trying to ensure sufficient food for all is NOT "trying to feed everyone equally" - another version of the conservative "equality of outcome" lie.

You keep recycling the same nonsense over and over again, while you - like all conservatives - insist poverty is 'normal' and can't be eradicted.

You must be hoping people just read the last post, which is why you think you can just keep recycling your despicable ideology over and over.

Deplorable.

Re "command economy": in fact the dual command-market econonmy has led to China leading the wolrd in PVs and EVs, and also SMRs - the latter failing in the US because private companies can't make a profit out of them, whereas China can support the development of SMRs via state subsidization.

You lose.

What do you think is wrong with my characterization of the Great Chinese Famine as trying to feed them all equally?

Can't you read?

"I already exposed your error some posts back, ( a reflection of) your blind, despicable fraudulent ideology: trying to ensure sufficient food for all is NOT "trying to feed everyone equally" - another version of the conservative "equality of outcome" lie.

So you need further explanation (assuming you CAN read)?

Let it sink in this time. The goal of poverty eradication is NOT the same as the Right's strawman aka "equality of outcome".

But they were actual communists back then, dedicated to equality of outcome. The fact that the CCP finally, after a century and after killing about 100 million of its own citizens, realises that capitalism does a better job of poverty reduction, does not change the CCP's history or fundamental culture.

Quote:

Quote:

How much of China's recent increase in standard of living do you think would have been possible without all the foreign money, ideas and technology that flooded in as soon as the CCP removed it's hands from around the neck of the Chinese people?

Most of it: it was the hard work of the Chinese people governed by a single authority which increased the standard of living, after China became the world's factory.

You are confused. These are not mutually exclusive. The foreign investment poured in because the Chinese people were willing to work hard. Yet, they also worked hard when Mao was starving them to death in their millions.

Quote:

Quote:

Do you think it is reasonable for a government to need to kill nearly 100 million of their own people over about a century in order to "learn" how to run the country? When they are surrounded by other countries showing them how to do it the easy way? How does that make China a meritocracy?

A mostly blind "freedom" ideologues' narrative:

re "the easy way":

(google)

Since 1990, income inequality has increased in most developed countries and in some middle-income countries, including China and India. While inequality has gone up in the majority of countries over the past three decades, it has fallen in a few.

You complain about me characterising Mao's effort at starving 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally, but in the same post conflate inequality with poverty. Remember, our welfare payments are more than double the median Chinese wage.

If you had a choice between people starving to death on a roughly equal basis under communism, or being far wealthier, but unequally so, under capitalism, which would you choose?

« Last Edit: Jun 28^th, 2024 at 9:51am by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13786
Gender: male

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #64 - Jun 28^th, 2024 at 3:33pm

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2024 at 9:44am:

But they were actual communists back then, dedicated to equality of outcome.

But they aren't now: there are 800 billionaires in China created since Deng's free-market reforms in 1980, nevertheless Xi has lately woken up to the limits of "free markets" introduced by Deng, and has realized houses are for living in, not as investment vehicles in a private personal-profit-seeking free-market. And the CCP has also cracked down on IPOs whose purpose is to create millionaires on the backs of the small investors who lose out.

Quote:

The fact that the CCP finally, after a century and after killing about 100 million of its own citizens, realises that capitalism does a better job of poverty reduction, does not change the CCP's history or fundamental culture.

Addressed and refuted above. Xi is reforming the economy, again, now that Deng's reforms are no longer engendering common prosperity, hence the CCP has had to bail out Evergande et al to avoid a US-style free market property crash.

Indeed, the world is now increasingly coming to understand the fraud that is promulgated by democracy; nations everywhere are bankrupt or forced to implement 'austerity' by the criminal IMF while billionaires are laughing all the way to the bank. (Apparently the world's first $trillionaire is likey to appear in a decade or so, as feared by Oxfam). Total economic dysfunction while a billion Aficans are living in absolute poverty, wondering why democratic elections do not increase their standard of living....even getting rid of Apartheid changed nothing for S. African blacks' standard of living

Again the IMF is a villain: when the Kenyan govt. tried to raise taxes to decrease the national debt as required by the IMF, naturally the poverty-level citizens rioted - revealing the economic dysfunction caused by obsolete economic othodoxy promulgated by the IMF ( a US stooge).

And the standard of living is falling in Britain, people are living in tents in California along side Zukerberg.

Democracy is a fraud

Quote:

TGD:

it was the hard work of the Chinese people governed by a single authority which increased the standard of living, after China became the world's factory.

You are confused. These are not mutually exclusive.

Correct (for once).

Western companies chasing cheap labour enabled faster techology transfer to occur in China, but it was the CCP who caused it to happen (by opening up), thereby becoming the world's factory (cf eg, India).

Quote:

The foreign investment poured in because the Chinese people were willing to work hard. Yet, they also worked hard when Mao was starving them to death in their millions.

Your error: foreign investment started pouring in after Deng's opening up, not before.

Quote:

You complain about me characterising Mao's effort at starving 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally,

Wrong agian, I complain about you conflating 'communism" with "equality of outcome" - your definition of communism, not the CCP's, since Deng.

Your attempt to smear the present-day CCP, on the basis of your definition of "communism" and CCP policies enacted half a century ago, is illogical - a speciality of your blind "freedom values" ideology blithely content with the disintegrating, dysfunctional democracies all around the world. (Biden argung with Trump in today's "debate" re who is the better golf player....a wonderful manifestation of the 'quality' of thought and politcal debate in 'blind leading the blind' democracies)..

Hence my yen for a consensus meritocracy, fgs...

Quote:

but in the same post conflate inequality with poverty. Remember, our welfare payments are more than double the median Chinese wage.

Your errors:

1. I don't conflate inequality with poverty, I point to extreme inequality as a manifestation of systemic economic dysfunction (instituted by the IMF down).

Even China is hindered by the economic dysfunction engendered by the current global financial system (requiring balanced government budgets).

2. Are you dementing? Stop reposting your ignorance which I have already exposed in previous posts. (Chinese farmers are better off than Oz dole recipients).

Conclusion: Democracy under the aegis of the IMF is a fraud. The Brits are dismayed by what either side has to offer, while their standard of living continues to fall - except for the City of London finacial casino operators who are laughing all the way to the bank.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 50247
Gender: male

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #65 - Aug 7^th, 2024 at 11:17am

..... but can't handle Taiwan beating them in.... badminton. Grin

Chinese state television broadcaster CCTV on Sunday pulled the plug on its Olympic coverage to avoid showing Taiwan’s badminton team winning the gold medal by defeating the top-rated Chinese team.

Taiwan won its first gold medal of the Paris Olympics when its men’s doubles team of Lee Yang and Wang Chi-lin bested China’s Liang Weikeng and Wang Chang in an upset badminton victory.

Also:
Chinese Media: Mentioning Chinese Olympians’ Failed Doping Tests Is Racist

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13786
Gender: male

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #66 - Aug 7^th, 2024 at 1:26pm

Frank wrote on Aug 7^th, 2024 at 11:17am:

..... but can't handle Taiwan beating them in.... badminton. Grin

I agree; it would have been smarter for the CCP to claim the win - and the gold - as a win for the Chinese nation, since Taiwan is part of China.

Quote:

Also:
Chinese Media: Mentioning Chinese Olympians’ Failed Doping Tests Is Racist

Oz sore losers making unsubstantiated claims about doping?

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 50247
Gender: male

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #67 - Jan 20^th, 2025 at 12:37pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 27^th, 2024 at 12:44pm:

The CCP, as professed followers of Marxism, strove to lift ALL the people out of poverty, not just some as was the norm in capitalist states; but the CCP had no guidelines how to achive a socialist revolution in China (Marx was concerned with the economies of industrial nations).

.....

But in China, absolute poverty has been eradicated, whereas in Oz, homlessness is increasing, home ownership is falling, and rents are increasingly unaffordable.. oh, and demand on food charities has never been higher.

The "easy way", indeed......

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49963
At my desk.

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #68 - Apr 17^th, 2025 at 11:37am

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 17^th, 2025 at 11:07am:

You would make a good politician - can't debate the argument on its merits (in this case, the failure of neoliberalism to house and feed everyone) so resort to what Mao did in China in the 60s,

How much merit is there in starving 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally?

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13786
Gender: male

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #69 - Apr 27^th, 2025 at 1:42pm

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2025 at 11:37am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 17^th, 2025 at 11:07am:

You would make a good politician - can't debate the argument on its merits (in this case, the failure of neoliberalism to house and feed everyone) so resort to what Mao did in China in the 60s,

How much merit is there in starving 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally?

He wasn't trying to do that, he tried to collectivize farming as per Marxist "communist" doctrine which unfortunately for Mao said nothing about reforming a vast, pre-industrial subsistence agriculture economy, via "communism".

....

This should cheer you up: yesterday the Global Times wrote an editorial praising Gregory Mankiw - author of the most widely read textbook in tertiary neoclassical economics - as proof of the efficacy of the WTO free-trade rules about which Trump is complaining.

Resulting in the blind leading the blind leading the blind; Mankiw is the ultimate 'pied piper'....even GT editors are hooked.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 50247
Gender: male

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #70 - Apr 28^th, 2025 at 11:36am

If hypocrisy had a house style, the Chinese ambassador’s latest dispatch in these pages would be its template. Xiao Qian’s essay attacking the US measures the gulf between Beijing’s words and deeds in seven-league boots.

Choosing a world run with Chinese characteristics demands a serious character check. China condemns US tariffs as “unilateral bullying” that risks a return to “the law of the jungle where the strong prey on the weak”.

Curious, then, that it was China that launched more than a dozen trade strikes against Australia for the crime of asking how Covid-19 began. Barley, wine, beef, lobster, coal, timber: all unilaterally sanctioned. No talks, no negotiation, no rules.

It is part of a pattern of punishment. Lithuania’s sin was to host a Taiwanese representative office. Result? Trade ties disappeared.

Norway awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo. China retaliated with a diplomatic freeze and a trade war, slashing Norwegian exports and sending a message to the world: cross Beijing and you will pay.

If there were a hall of fame for diplomatic irony, this would be carved above the door: “China is a steadfast defender of multilateralism and the international rules-based order.” This from a regime that expels journalists, censors the internet, imprisons dissenters and systematically shuts foreign companies out of key sectors of its domestic market.

In industries from technology to finance to green energy, China imposes licensing barriers, demands joint ventures and favours heavily subsidised national champions. Its longstanding strategy of forced technology transfer and industrial espionage, including cyber attacks by state-backed groups such as APT10 and Volt Typhoon, has targeted Western corporations, defence contractors and critical infrastructure. This isn’t order, it’s hybrid warfare.

For decades the West placated China, believing integration would lead to liberalisation. We let it into the World Trade Organisation, offshored our factories and turned a blind eye to intellectual property theft and trade distortions. In return, China built a surveillance state, crushed Hong Kong, silenced dissent and prepared for war.

Xiao urges resistance to “unilateralism and protectionism”, a stirring call if it weren’t coming from one of the most protectionist economies on Earth. China manipulates its currency, demands technology transfers from foreign firms and subsidises entire industries, allowing them to flood global markets and kill competition. Solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries are all backed by, and in service of, the Chinese Communist Party.

The Chinese ambassador to Australia insists China is “accelerating its green transformation”. The spray job may be green but lift the bonnet and the engine runs on coal. China burned more coal in 2024 than the rest of the world combined, about 58 per cent of global consumption. It is building new coal-fired power stations at the rate of nearly two a week and produces 35 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions. The solar panels it exports are manufactured with fossil fuel and linked to forced Uighur labour in Xinjiang.

Chris Uhlmann

China is the empire of lies. It needs to be brought to heel.

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13786
Gender: male

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #71 - Apr 28^th, 2025 at 2:44pm

Frank wrote on Apr 28^th, 2025 at 11:36am:

Blind "freedom values" Uhlmann on hypocrisy? Let's read on....

Quote:

China condemns US tariffs as “unilateral bullying” that risks a return to “the law of the jungle where the strong prey on the weak”.

....while Trump is claiming the whole world, not just China, is cheating on the US?

Uhlmann blindness #1.

Quote:

Curious, then, that it was China that launched more than a dozen trade strikes against Australia for the crime of asking how Covid-19 began. Barley, wine, beef, lobster, coal, timber: all unilaterally sanctioned. No talks, no negotiation, no rules.

After Turnbull on orders of the CIA banned Huawei, the first internationally successful Chinese company operating under WTO free-trade rules, thereby souring relations with the Conservative Oz government, resulting in China's later retaliatory restrictions on Oz goods.

Uhlmann blindness #2.

Quote:

It is part of a pattern of punishment. Lithuania’s sin was to host a Taiwanese representative office. Result? Trade ties disappeared.

Taiwan (and the One China UN protocol) is China's redline, which is why the US (and Trump) won't cross it.

Uhlmann blindness #3.

Quote:

Norway awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo. China retaliated with a diplomatic freeze and a trade war, slashing Norwegian exports and sending a message to the world: cross Beijing and you will pay.

Liu Xiaobo was a Chinese literary critic, human rights activist, philosopher and Nobel Peace Prize laureate who called for political reforms and was involved in campaigns to end Chinese Communist Party one-party rule in China.

He wants to overthrow the government accepted by the vast majorty of Chinese, ...... just another 'dime a dozen' "freedom values" ideologue.

Ulmann blindness #4

Quote:

If there were a hall of fame for diplomatic irony, this would be carved above the door: “China is a steadfast defender of multilateralism and the international rules-based order.” This from a regime that expels journalists, censors the internet, imprisons dissenters and systematically shuts foreign companies out of key sectors of its domestic market.

In industries from technology to finance to green energy, China imposes licensing barriers, demands joint ventures and favours heavily subsidised national champions. Its longstanding strategy of forced technology transfer and industrial espionage, including cyber attacks by state-backed groups such as APT10 and Volt Typhoon, has targeted Western corporations, defence contractors and critical infrastructure. This isn’t order, it’s hybrid warfare.

Er.. a conseqence of trade IS technology transfer. eg:

Ford is partnering with CATL, a major Chinese EV battery maker, to license CATL's lithium-iron phosphate (LFP) battery technology for a new $3.5 billion battery plant in Marshall, Michigan.

This plant, set to begin production in 2026, will produce LFP batteries for Ford's EVs. The partnership has faced scrutiny from some US lawmakers, who have expressed concerns about relying on Chinese technology

So - deny yourself access to the best tech...China isn't so dumb.

And Tesla's largest factories are in China.

Uhlmann blindness #5.

Quote:

For decades the West placated China, believing integration would lead to liberalisation. We let it into the World Trade Organisation, offshored our factories and turned a blind eye to intellectual property theft and trade distortions. In return, China built a surveillance state, crushed Hong Kong, silenced dissent and prepared for war.

False narrative: 1st world companies flocked to China, chasing cheap labor under WTO 'freetrade' rules. China is preparing to defend Taiwan from committed "freedom values" ideologues who can't see the dysfunction in their own economies.

Uhlmann blindness #6

Quote:

Xiao urges resistance to “unilateralism and protectionism”, a stirring call if it weren’t coming from one of the most protectionist economies on Earth. China manipulates its currency, demands technology transfers from foreign firms and subsidises entire industries, allowing them to flood global markets and kill competition. Solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries are all backed by, and in service of, the Chinese Communist Party.

Nothing wrong with subsidizing strategically/environmentally important industries like EVs and PVs, as understood by Biden in his IRA bill, since cancelled by Trump.

Uhlmann blindness #7.

Quote:

The Chinese ambassador to Australia insists China is “accelerating its green transformation”.

It is; China now has the largest renewables sector in the world, increasing at the fastest rate. The concurrent increasing use of coal will peak in 2030, while developing the economy at the fastest rate, on the way to zero emissions by 2060. 700 million poor people in China still consume less than a fifth of Oz per capita electricity consumption.

Uhlmann blindness #8.

Well done, Frank.

« Last Edit: Apr 28^th, 2025 at 2:49pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49963
At my desk.

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #72 - May 6^th, 2025 at 12:25pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 27^th, 2025 at 1:42pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2025 at 11:37am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 17^th, 2025 at 11:07am:

You would make a good politician - can't debate the argument on its merits (in this case, the failure of neoliberalism to house and feed everyone) so resort to what Mao did in China in the 60s,

How much merit is there in starving 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally?

How is that different to "trying to feed them all equally"? Are you referring to the CCP officials eating well and growing fat while they starved millions of people to death?

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13786
Gender: male

Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead
Reply #73 - May 7^th, 2025 at 11:31pm

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2025 at 12:25pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 27^th, 2025 at 1:42pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2025 at 11:37am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 17^th, 2025 at 11:07am:

You would make a good politician - can't debate the argument on its merits (in this case, the failure of neoliberalism to house and feed everyone) so resort to what Mao did in China in the 60s,

How much merit is there in starving 50 million people to death by trying to feed them all equally?

How is that different to "trying to feed them all equally"?

You, like graps, show why the 'blind leading the blind' democracies are imploding all around the world (the latest example: German Chancellor Merz, within hours of being installed, faced a no-confidence motion from his supposed new coalition partners, because he wants to increase governement debt, to fix neglected infrastructure and increase defence spending).

Let's see.....the ideological drive to collectivize farms ie, following a mistaken interpretation of Marx;

compared with:

" "trying to feed them all equally"

..obviously FD's ideologically-blind interpretation of "collectivization of farms" - Mao's flawed policy (a misreading of Marx's "workers of the world unite"; subsistance farmers don't work for evil capitalists, they subsist via their own produce) designed to maximize total OUTPUT of the nation's farms, as opposed to feeding everyone equally via CONSUMPTION of all the farms' production.

The very fact I had to explain that to you shows why adversarial multi-party democracy is "the worst form of government....".

Quote:

Are you referring to the CCP officials eating well and growing fat while they starved millions of people to death?

1. yes; and 2. no, as already explained above; your ideologically-blind narratives are tripping you up as usual, so you combined too different concepts ie individuals' different consumption of the nation's output versus the system of producing the nation's output - indeed consumption IS unequal in any society, regardless of the economic system employed in the nation's output.

Just another version of the Conservative lie: 'equality of opportunity' means 'equality of consumption', defined as poverty for all.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49963 At my desk.	Re: China: little pinks see merit in 50 million dead Reply #74 - May 8^th, 2025 at 7:39am So the CCP didn't starve 50 million people to death by trying to feed themselves equally, because they themselves were growing fat in the process?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page