Chinese Economics Thread

[latenlazy]

Yes you did.

Then quote me. Because I've checked and I haven't seen a statement from me that said that.

Everyone you were arguing against in here all said it was simply Chinese property. That's the sole reason why no one else can claim otherwise.

And I never disagreed with that. I was simply saying that none of the articles so far have claimed or indicated that it wasn't Chinese property/the West had unfettered rights to Chinese property. Why? Because a complaint is not an assertion of ownership or right, and all those articles did was talk about how 1) Chinese rare earths were going to undergo greater regulation and consolidation in China, and 2) Firms and Countries complaining about higher prices and trade practices. That is hardly enough to imply one side believes they own the resources of another.

Don't bring "other people" into this. No one else has jumped into this discussion because it's a stupid one, and it's one where I say something and you ignore it, and instead accuse me of saying something I didn't. If you disagree, why don't you actually go quote where you think I've said the things you think I have?

 

[AssassinsMace]

If everyone you were arguing against in here simply said it was Chinese property, what does that say your stand was? That's the only argument that was needed and you had something against it. And it was probably why you took that stance because you saw such consensus it offended you. That's why you can't "recall" anything you said because it was all about looking for any excuse against and not because of the answer. You were just throwing everything out there.

 

[latenlazy]

If everyone you were arguing against in here simply said it was Chinese property, what does that say your stand was? That's the only argument that was needed and you had something against it. And it was probably why you took that stance because you saw such consensus it offended you. That's why you can't "recall" anything you said because it was all about looking for any excuse against and not because of the answer. You were just throwing everything out there.

Last I checked, people were also saying the west was acting as if they had rights to Chinese property. I was simply offering an alternative interpretation (Just because they complain does not meant they believe that). For someone who accused others of assuming things, you're making quite a big assumption about my position when you try to insinuate assertions that I did not make. If I wanted to say the West did have rights to Chinese property, I would have just said it. What's offensive has been your utter refusal to read my comments without misrepresenting them and twisting them into assumptions about me, not whether people agree with me or not. This entire time it hasn't been me disagreeing with you about the topical points of the discussion, but me trying to tell you that I'm not saying what you accuse me of saying.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Last I checked, people were also saying the west was acting as if they had rights to Chinese property. I was simply offering an alternative interpretation (Just because they complain does not meant they believe that). For someone who accused others of assuming things, you're making quite a big assumption about my position when you try to insinuate assertions that I did not make. If I wanted to say the West did have rights to Chinese property, I would have just said it. What's offensive has been your utter refusal to read my comments without misrepresenting them and twisting them into assumptions about me, not whether people agree with me or not. This entire time it hasn't been me disagreeing with you about the topical points of the discussion, but me trying to tell you that I'm not saying what you accuse me of saying.

Same thing. Here you go again with the demand for literal exactness. I betcha when you were demanding examples of my "gun to the head" analogy, you were literally thinking a real gun to the head. When you think you can tell what the Chinese can do with their own property, that's called believing you have rights to them. Were they like fighting for someone else to claim Chinese property? You weren't providing us with an alternative view or you wouldn't have accused anyone arguing against you as bringing up the victim card. So quit with the "I was only playing devil's advocate." That's your cop out. Are you going to complain now where did you say you were playing devil's advocate.

 

[latenlazy]

Same thing. Here you go again with the demand for literal exactness. I betcha when you were demanding examples of my "gun to the head" analogy, you were literally thinking a real gun to the head. When you think you can tell what the Chinese can do with their own property, that's called believing you have rights to them. Were they like fighting for someone else to claim Chinese property? You weren't providing us with an alternative view or you wouldn't have accused anyone arguing against you as bringing up the victim card. So quit with the "I was only playing devil's advocate." That's your cop out. Are you going to complain now where did you say you were playing devil's advocate.

By "literal exactness" you mean not assuming what's not stated? That'd be a useful skill to have. And no, I could understand your analogy perfectly fine. However, if you can't even back your analogy with examples then it's just empty rhetoric. We have a word for calling a situation that isn't. It's called a misrepresentation.

Quote the points in the article where they were telling China what they can do with their property. The closest I saw it come to that was the discussion about trade disputes which, guess what, happens with every country, and is part of being in the WTO.

Where did I say people arguing against me was bringing up the victim card? I said China, the US, and any other country constantly play victim with each other when having these trade disputes. That is an observation about how countries behave during trade disputes, not an accusation against people who disagree with me. Again, your reading comprehension is failing you.

BTW Thanks for revealing your own double standards. It's nice to know that when you ridicule others for "assuming" things about what they're saying, you're not ridiculing yourself for the exact same behavior.

 

[AssassinsMace]

By "literal exactness" you mean not assuming what's not stated? That'd be a useful skill to have. And no, I could understand your analogy perfectly fine. However, if you can't even back your analogy with examples then it's just empty rhetoric. We have a word for calling a situation that isn't. It's called a misrepresentation.

Quote the points in the article where they were telling China what they can do with their property. The closest I saw it come to that was the discussion about trade disputes which, guess what, happens with every country, and is part of being in the WTO.

Where did I say people arguing against me was bringing up the victim card? I said China, the US, and any other country constantly play victim with each other when having these trade disputes. That is an observation about how countries behave during trade disputes, not an accusation against people who disagree with me. Again, your reading comprehension is failing you.

BTW Thanks for revealing your own double standards. It's nice to know that when you ridicule others for "assuming" things about what they're saying, you're not ridiculing yourself for the exact same behavior.

You don't remember well. Remember how I said I posted that article pointing out it was an outsourcing story. You're the one that digressed making excuses for foreign rights to Chinese property. I don't have to point out anything in that article because my post had nothing to with the general debate on rare earths. Spin as usual to cover-up your mistakes.

 

[latenlazy]

You don't remember well. Remember how I said I posted that article pointing out it was an outsourcing story. You're the one that digressed making excuses for foreign rights to Chinese property. I don't have to point out anything in that article because my post had nothing to with the general debate on rare earths. Spin as usual to cover-up your mistakes.

So then why did you write

So the West has no ground to stand on about China controlling the very rare earth resources it produces itself. If the situation were the other way around, it would be called slavery. You would see furious anger that China has command over what other countries produce for themselves. Then add to the fact the health and lives at risk in this industry have to sacrifice for another country? They wouldn't stand for that. I read a comment on Yahoo that called for nuking China and taking back their rare earths. This is the general mentality that these rare earths don't belong to China even though it produces them itself. Like I mentioned before, this is a perfect example of what will happen when they want their jobs back. And look how they complain about the price of fluorescent bulbs rising as a result. And if they got what they wished for having all these jobs come home, they end up like default scandal-ridden Solyndra in the news. As for the accusation that China undercuts prices... That's what happened in Solyndra's business model. They sold solar panels at around half the cost to make it. Do we see China defaulting? This is a charge with everything made in China. The government is subsidizing everything and the Chinese engine is still humming along.

That's what I was responding to in regards to the rare earth topic. You brought it up, and I was simply reiterating what I had said earlier, which is that every country complains about another country's economic practices. It's not a matter of right. Countries do it because they can.

I responded to the rest of your post with

Anyways, the US is hardly unique in having people who make such assertive and ill informed comments on the internet. One anecdote does not make a trend , and one trend is not itself always generalizable. This applies to the comment about Solyndra as well. If it's okay to use Solyndra to generalize US businesses, it's okay to use failed enterprises in China to generalize Chinese ones.

Why without as much to say? Because I wasn't focused on the "outsourcing" aspect. That is a separate matter from resource ownership. Those two are simply not the same topics, and mixing them together gets tricky and prone to error.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Is that you're way of tricking to stop people from challenging you like bringing up the victim card because your arguments didn't carry any weight? If you brought up bad arguments, I will gladly show you how wrong you are. Don't try to spin it because you brought the discussion in that direction somehow it's everyone else fault for perpetuating it. I wasn't going to pass up the opportunity to show how you're wrong.

What you just edited doesn't change anything.

 

[latenlazy]

Is that you're way of tricking to stop people from challenging you like bringing up the victim card because your arguments didn't carry any weight? If you brought up bad arguments, I will gladly show you how wrong you are. Don't try to spin it because you brought the discussion in that direction somehow it's everyone else fault for perpetuating it. I wasn't going to pass up the opportunity to show how you're wrong.

No. It's my way of clarifying my points. You responded to the topic. I responded to your response because it was a point I had addressed earlier. If you really weren't going to pass up the opportunity to show how wrong I was, then why didn't you just go in and quote me where I was wrong like I said you should have? Your credibility is quickly fading here, and not the least bit because you're making this so personal.

I have no interest what so ever in continuing this discussion if your purpose isn't for the actual discussion of the subject. I'll let your own admission of making this personal speak for itself.

 

[AssassinsMace]

No. It's my way of clarifying my points. You responded to the topic. I responded to your response because it was a point I had addressed earlier. If you really weren't going to pass up the opportunity to show how wrong I was, then why didn't you just go in and quote me where I was wrong like I said you should have? Your credibility is quickly fading here, and not the least bit because you're making this so personal.

Like how you have shown no proof of anything you argued? Your credibility was gone from the beginning. Did I backtrack like you saying there's a case for foreign ownership then admitting it was Chinese property?