Chinese Economics Thread

[latenlazy]

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?

On the contrary, I pointed to what the article itself said, because my point was to give an alternative interpretation of the article. If you're not satisfied with my referral to it (since I assume you read the article), I'll directly quote it, but quoting an article that everyone is presumed to have read is as unnecessary as quoting one's own posts. It's already on the record.

"China produces nearly 95 percent of the world’s rare earth materials, and it is taking the steps to improve pollution controls in a notoriously toxic mining and processing industry. But the moves also have potential international trade implications and have started yet another round of price increases for rare earths"

"In July, the European Union said in a statement on rare earth policy that the organization supported efforts to protect the environment, but that discrimination against foreign buyers of rare earths was not allowed under World Trade Organization rules.

China has been imposing tariffs and quotas on its rare earth exports for several years, curtailing global supplies and forcing prices to rise eightfold to fortyfold during that period for the various 17 rare earth elements.

Even before this latest move by China, the United States and the European Union were preparing to file a case at the W.T.O. this winter that would challenge Chinese export taxes and export quotas on rare earths.
"
WTO disputes, and complaints about input costs. Nothing about rights or ownership claims to Chinese resources.

Complaints about input costs, and trade disputes, from all countries

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I would have been backtracking if I had said there was a case for foreign ownership. If you're so certain i said it, why don't you actually quote where you thought I said so? Certainly it can't be any more difficult than finding one line in any of the posts where I repeated the same points? For a person who claims not to want to pass up an opportunity to prove someone wrong, wouldn't that be ideal? Either quit stalling, or quit trolling.

 

[AssassinsMace]

On the contrary, I pointed to what the article itself said, because my point was to give an alternative interpretation of the article. If you're not satisfied with my referral to it (since I assume you read the article), I'll directly quote it.

"China produces nearly 95 percent of the world’s rare earth materials, and it is taking the steps to improve pollution controls in a notoriously toxic mining and processing industry. But the moves also have potential international trade implications and have started yet another round of price increases for rare earths"

"In July, the European Union said in a statement on rare earth policy that the organization supported efforts to protect the environment, but that discrimination against foreign buyers of rare earths was not allowed under World Trade Organization rules.

China has been imposing tariffs and quotas on its rare earth exports for several years, curtailing global supplies and forcing prices to rise eightfold to fortyfold during that period for the various 17 rare earth elements.

Even before this latest move by China, the United States and the European Union were preparing to file a case at the W.T.O. this winter that would challenge Chinese export taxes and export quotas on rare earths.
"
Complaints about input costs, and trade disputes, from all countries

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I would have been backtracking if I had said there was a case for foreign ownership. If you're so certain i said it, why don't you actually quote where you thought I said so? Certainly it can't be any more difficult than finding one line in any of the posts where I repeated the same points?

Alternative interpretation of the article? Like saying the article wasn't about China when China is the first word in the title and the only country being referred to doing this is China? And you're arrogant enough to think you're an authority on what this journalist actually meant? Do you personally know this journalist so you can insult and tell what this journalist actually meant? You were offended before when I bought up how you think your opinion is the only one that was valid above everyone else in this forum and all the media in the world. What does that say when you think your "interpretaion" is the one everyone else has to believe in. Again... you're in denial even when it's printed right in front of you. You're rewriting what a journalist writes and then expecting everyone to take your spin as official just so you can win the argument? That's conceited.

And you accused me of putting words in your mouth? What do you call that? And you contested when I first brought that up about you making arguments no one was making in here as if they did. You just admitted that you do that.

 

[latenlazy]

Alternative interpretation of the article? Like saying the article wasn't about China when China is the first word in the title and the only country being referred to doing this is China? And you're arrogant enough to think you're an authority on what this journalist actually meant? Do you personally know this journalist so you can insult and tell what this journalist actually meant? You were offended before when I bought up how you think your opinion is the only one that was valid above everyone else in this forum and all the media in the world. What does that say when you think your "interpretaion" is the one everyone else has to believe in. Again... you're in denial even when it's printed right in front of you. You're rewriting what a journalist writes and then expecting everyone to take your spin as official just so you can win the argument? That's conceited.

And you accused me of putting words in your mouth? What do you call that? And you contested when I first brought that up about you making arguments no one was making in here as if they did. You just admitted that you do that.

There you go again, accusing me of saying what I didn't say and then using up a whole paragraph trying to insinuate things that aren't there. You asked for "evidence". I provided it. Instead of actually questioning the conclusions I've drawn from the evidence I've used, you've simply ignored it and gone off on some senseless rhetoric. Who's spinning now?

I'm done here. Have a good day.

 

[AssassinsMace]

There you go again, accusing me of saying what I didn't say. Then using up a whole paragraph trying to insinuate things that aren't there.

In denial again? You just admitted it. What? Are you going wait a couple pages later and then demand proof that you said that? I'll save you time and read your previous post #1781.

 

[latenlazy]

In denial again? You just admitted it. What? Are you going wait a couple pages later and then demand proof that you said that? I'll save you time and read your previous post #1781.

I provided my evidence. You could have gone and actually questioned the substance of that evidence, instead of spinning about "interpretations" and "knowing the jouranlists". After all, if your interpretation is "so right" then why don't you actually explain why, instead of going off on junk characterizations.

Do you know the journalists well enough to have the "right interpretation"? Because if you do not, you could be equally as right or wrong as me, and we should be discussing this based on substance. Why not focus on that instead of personal attacks?

And FYI, the only thing I have ever been offended by has been an inability for you to READ what I say instead of making false accusations about it. I have tried to clarify constantly what I post, and you have been working very hard to spin my words into something black and white with total disregard for what I actually say.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I provided my evidence. You could have gone and actually questioned the substance of that evidence, instead of spinning about "interpretations" and "knowing the jouranlists". After all, if your interpretation is "so right" then why don't you actually explain why, instead of going off on junk characterizations.

Do you know the journalists well enough to have the "right interpretation"? Because if you do not, you could be equally as right or wrong as me, and we should be discussing this based on substance. Why not focus on that instead of personal attacks?

And FYI, the only thing I have ever been offended by has been an inability for you to READ what I say instead of making false accusations about it. I have tried to clarify constantly what I post, and you have been working very hard to spin my words into something black and white with total disregard for what I actually say.

I thought you were done. You've provided zip. Tis which is why you're backtracking.

Spin again? I attack these journalist's credibility. That's not reinterpreting. You see me covering up for their mistakes like you by telling us what they were actually saying? I'm challenging them just like I've done to you. And you're the only one reintepreting what you've said, i.e. arguing there was a case for foreign ownership for Chinese property then admitting it was Chinese property and then contradicting yourself saying you never said there was a case for foreign rights.

 

[latenlazy]

I thought you were done. You've provided zip. Tis which is why you're backtracking.

Spin again? I attack these journalist's credibility. That's not reinterpreting. You see me covering up for their mistakes like you by telling us what they were actually saying? I'm challenging them just like I've done to you. And you're the only one reintepreting what you've said, i.e. arguing there was a case for foreign ownership for Chinese property then admitting it was Chinese property and then contradicting yourself saying you never said there was a case for foreign rights.

Soo...they're suspect unless they agree with your interpretation. Really nice.

And next time you want to accuse me of saying something...Quote Me.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Go back and read your posts.


I already caught you big time and notice how you're avoiding it? So now you're going to digress into questioning what a journalist rights as reinterpreting what they say? Spin again. I'm questioning their credibility not protecting them like you by reinterpreting what they say so I can win an argument.

 

[latenlazy]

Go back and read your posts.

Last I checked, I've been the only one actually going back and pulling out old comments. Nice try though.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Last I checked, I've been the only one actually going back and pulling out old comments. Nice try though.

Just like you didn't believe you make arguments where no such argument was made but you acted as if was? You just admitted you do that? See post #1781. "Alternative interpretation of the article..." That's classic.