Chinese Economics Thread

[latenlazy]

Here you go again. Didn't I say it was a misnomer?

*rollseyes* Misnomer or not, I was addressing this:

It's retarded, if the West has a problem with China's practices, they can do it themselves. They have plenty of it in Canada, USA and etc. Despite being called "rare" earth metals they're not that rare just costly and damaging to harvest. They got the technology, knowledge and labor they're just "civilized" to get their hands dirty and would impinge their interests and impose their so called "Free Trade".

I was simply trying to point out that "rare" is just what they're called, and that no one is using the impression that they're "rare" (which I can assure you anyone who watches this issue has wrong impressions about) as part of their complaints/arguments (not addressed towards you).

Did he say that they were? No, but there's a reason why I didn't write a paragraph about it. In the case the implication was there, it was a nice to know fact about why they're called rare earth metals (for which I need to make a self correction on, it's not that they're not common in the crust, but that they're dispersed and not found in concentration, though certain elements in the group are harder to find). You can call it a misnomer, but the term was coined in for a specific reason, and their scarcity isn't being used as a reason for complaint, which was all my comment regarding that point ever was about.

 

[AssassinsMace]

*rollseyes* Misnomer or not, I was addressing this:


I was simply trying to point out that "rare" is just what they're called, and that no one is using the impression that they're "rare" (which I can assure you anyone who watches this issue has wrong impressions about) as part of their complaints/arguments (not addressed towards you).

Did he say that they were? No, but there's a reason why I didn't write a paragraph about it. In the case the implication was there, it was a nice to know fact about why they're called rare earth metals (for which I need to make a self correction on, it's not that they're not common in the crust, but that they're dispersed and not found in concentration, though certain elements in the group are harder to find). You can call it a misnomer, but the term was coined in for a specific reason, and their scarcity isn't being used as a reason for complaint, which was all my comment regarding that point ever was about.

Here you go again... again. Then why did you reply to me? You're the only one bringing up the reasons behind the complaint. It's Chinese property which everyone you're arguing against has declared. You seem to want to avoid that basic fact regardless whatever spin you want to make of the complaint. Your side wants to avoid saying anything of the sort because as they say in the US, "possession is 9/10th of the law." Just like none on your side calls it an outsourcing story where China is giving what American workers want. Can't vilify China by showing China is returning those jobs and industries back to Americans like they've always wanted.

 

[latenlazy]

Here you go again... again. Then why did you reply to me? You're the only one bringing up the reasons behind the complaint. It's Chinese property which everyone you're arguing against has declared. You seem to want to avoid that basic fact regardless whatever spin you want to make of the complaint. Your side wants to avoid saying anything of the sort because as they say in the US, "possession is 9/10th of the law." Just like none on your side calls it an outsourcing story where China is giving what American workers want. Can't vilify China by showing China is returning those jobs and industries back to Americans like they've always wanted.

...The better question is why did you reply to me? Because I wasn't addressing my comments at you before you replied to mine. Also, if you actually read what I've been saying I myself have pointed out that it's Chinese property and that China has full right to do what it wants with it. I'm not arguing against that. And if you also haven't noticed, I have not really taken a side to this. Quote me where I've "sided" anywhere, or vilified China.

On the side note, FYI, there've been plenty of stories about why China's move on rare earths is good for American jobs.

 

[AssassinsMace]

...The better question is why did you reply to me? Because I wasn't addressing my comments at you before you replied to mine. Also, if you actually read what I've been saying I myself have pointed out that it's Chinese property and that China has full right to do what it wants with it. I'm not arguing against that. And if you also haven't noticed, I have not really taken a side to this. Quote me where I've "sided" anywhere, or vilified China.

On the side note, FYI, there've been plenty of stories about why China's move on rare earths is good for American jobs.

Go back and read again. You said you were addressing this in a post replying to me...

It's retarded, if the West has a problem with China's practices, they can do it themselves. They have plenty of it in Canada, USA and etc. Despite being called "rare" earth metals they're not that rare just costly and damaging to harvest. They got the technology, knowledge and labor they're just "civilized" to get their hands dirty and would impinge their interests and impose their so called "Free Trade".

Guess what? That's not my post so why did you reply to my post when you were addressing someone else? You're really mixed up in literally everything.

 

[latenlazy]

Go back and read again. You said you were addressing this in a post replying to me...

Read carefully.
"...The better question is why did you reply to me? Because I wasn't addressing my comments at you before you replied to mine." So yes, the following replies were directed at you, because you had replied to my post after.

I was simply asking that if you cared so much about being topical to what you quote, why you would reply to something not even addressed to you without even being topical to what you quoted? Double standard much?

Guess what? That's not my post so why did you reply to my post when you were addressing someone else? You're really mixed up in literally everything.

My original reply to your post was, and I quote

"Well, the reason I learned in chemistry was that they were called rare for that reason...so take it as you may."

In other words, addressing your point that it was a misnomer.

Your reply was

The only thing that makes it rare these days is maybe the refining process and mainly how it's a hazardous to your health business not because the raw materials needed to make rare earth resources are rare. Which is one of the reasons why it's going cost them more to produce it. They care about their health but not the Chinese especially when someone else has to sacrifice for them disregarding the human rights conditions they supposedly and reluctantly don't care about in this situation. All of the sudden slave labor is okay when it saves them money.

And mine was

The point was rare earths is a technical term used in the sciences. It's got nothing to do with an attempt to make them seem rare as a commodity.

In other words, for some reason whenever I bring up that rare earth metals being called that simply because that is the standard name for them in chemistry, you seem to feel the need to reply to it with some banter about them not being rare. I have not disputed that, but because you seemed to feel the need to emphasize the point that they're not actually rare (which was consequentially the original point I was addressing from the other poster) whenever I simply point out it's a technical term, the only conclusion I could come up with was that you mistakened my statement to mean that they were rare.

In response, I have simply tried to reiterate my original point to clarify that I'm not making a comment about their scarcity (or lack thereof), only to be met by more of your unfocused bantering about their un-scarcity.

Why it is that when quoting me you comment on a matter that has nothing to do with my original statement, when I didn't even direct the original statement to you, is a mystery to me, but I don't seem to be the one who's mixed up, when I have actually tried to be topical to the things I quote.

 

[AssassinsMace]

You better write more clearly then. You replied to my post where I was replying to Delft's post. After that you were addressing other posts replying to mine? If you say you agree that it's China's property, why did you ever bother to argue about it?

 

[latenlazy]

You better write more clearly then. You replied to my post where I was replying to Delft's post. After that you were addressing other posts replying to mine? If you say you agree that it's China's property, why did you ever bother to argue about it?

You need to read more clearly. I made it clear several times throughout this discussion my comments on any of this was not in regards to whether Chinese rare earths belonged to China. You replied to delft's reply to me, which basically mimicked earlier responses. In a sense you were replying to me. The reply chain can be confusing, and probably besides the point. What I don't get is why you constantly interpreted my statements to be something it wasn't, when I never even mentioned ownership and property, and simply provided one liners about terminology.

 

[AssassinsMace]

You need to read more clearly. I made it clear several times throughout this discussion my comments on any of this was not in regards to whether Chinese rare earths belonged to China. You replied to delft's reply to me, which basically mimicked earlier responses. In a sense you were replying to me. The reply chain can be confusing, and probably besides the point. What I don't get is why you constantly interpreted my statements to be something it wasn't, when I never even mentioned ownership and property, and simply provided one liners about terminology.

Like accusing anyone challenging you as hiding behind China as a victim and then accuse everyone else of bringing up the victim card? Or saying you saw nothing in the article saying it was about China when China is the first word in the title and China is the only country named in the article? Or how about disregarding everyone elses post or news article stories as just opinion but everyone has to look at your arguments as legitimate? I started with this noting it was a outsourcing case. Every digression is a result of you. Every argument you were making was a result of something you assumed someone else posting was saying and was not actually written. You kept on arguing the the West's case yet time and time again after being asked for some proof that supported the West's rights to Chinese property, you continually show none. You're the one that expects everyone else to show legitimacy to their own arguments yet you show none of yours. When you defend the West's case, you don't believe China has rights to their own property.

BTW, When I reply to someone's post, I replying to them. What I said was pretty general. My post was referring to the misnomer the media portrays of the term rare earths. Go back a read it. I don't know how you thought that was a reply to you unless you agree with the media's spin. I can see why you would assume I was talking to you since that has been one of themes of the way you argue. You pass on an argument that wasn't made and act as if it was.

 

[latenlazy]

Like accusing anyone challenging you as hiding behind China as a victim and then accuse everyone else of bringing up the victim card? Or saying you saw nothing in the article saying it was about China when China is the first word in the title and China is the only country named in the article? Or how about disregarding everyone elses post or news article stories as just opinion but everyone has to look as your arguments as legitimate? I started with this noting it was a outsourcing case. Every digression is a result of you. Every argument you were making was a result of something you assumed someone else posting was saying and was not actually written. You kept on arguing the the West's case yet time and time again after being asked for some proof that supported the West's rights to Chinese property, you continually show none. You're the one that expects everyone else to show legitimacy to their own arguments yet you show none of yours. When you defend the West's case, you don't believe China has rights to their own property.

BTW, When I reply to someone's post, I replying to them. What I said was pretty general. My post was referring to the misnomer the media portrays of the term rare earths. Go back a read it. I don't know how you thought that was a reply to you unless you agree with the media's spin. I can see why you would assume I was talking to you since that has been one of themes of the way you argue. You pass on an argument that wasn't made and act as if it was.

1) I have not accused anyone of anything. Quote me where I have.
2) You grossly overgeneralize to the point of absurdity. Again, quote me where you think I claimed the articles didn't have anything to do with China. If you had any reading comprehension at all I said the articles do not represent a claim of foreign powers as believing they own China's resources.
3) Where did I disregard other people's articles as opinion? Again quote me. I was disputing whether your article supported your argument. That is hardly discrediting the source.
4) Not everything I reply to is meant to be in opposition. One can make a comment that is meant to clarify or inform. You are free to disagree, but a disagreement on the information is hardly cause for believing I'm assuming what others say. I am perfectly aware of what I'm responding to, but that does not mean I can't reply with points that haven't been brought up. That is not assuming what others have said. Quote me where you think I have.
5) You oversimplify by saying I'm arguing the West's case. I was simply saying the observed behavior in the articles are shared by nation states and if the situation were reversed we could expect the same rhetoric from China or Chinese firms. That is not siding with anyone. I am hardly making an indictment about who's right or wrong. If you think I'm lying, quote me.
6) I did not say anywhere that the West had rights to Chinese property. Quote me where I made that claim? I said that the West's complaint about China's rare earths is not an indication of the west believing it has rights to Chinese property.As I've said many times already complaining about something does not equate to asserting a belief that you have ownership rights to it. Does me complaining about the weather mean I believe I own the weather? If you disagree quote the specific points of the article you believe back your interpretation.
7) I've already indicated the parts of the articles as examples of my argument. They are complaints about input cost increases and price barriers. If you need me to wring your hand and specifically quote them I will.
8) You make some pretty bold accusations about what I've said. I'd be interested to see you back those claims.

I get that you were talking about the media using the "misnomer". My reply was meant to clarify that it's not the media that perpetuates the use of those terms, but that rather the term originates from the history of science and is still commonly used in the scientific field. There is no media spin. Everyone, professional and academic (in China as well and everywhere else) use rare earths as a common term to refer to a group of elements. It's the accepted term in the scientific community. I was replying to your argument because it was bringing up the same points I was trying to bring up earlier.

 

[AssassinsMace]

It's called go back and read your own posts.