Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It's to deter other countries from going with China's Belt and Road because they can't trust China with their data. It's irrelevant bull. It's like Obama's pitch that China's AIIB was bad because it didn't have as many restrictions and conditions on countries on getting loans as if a country that wanted a loan wanted more hurdles in front of them to get that loan. The whole point is so underdeveloped countries can develop. If countries are worried about about China abusing data that doesn't exist where they can pay more to get less after, then they can go to the West for money. The West is concerned about a world with infrastructure built by China because they won't be able to do what they charge China. They won't be able to easily spy with telecom and digital infrastructure built by China. The West can't beat China on price so they have scare countries from China with "digital" abuse.
The aim is to prevent growth of Chinese digital service companies in Asia while maintaining American digital colonization/dominance.
They will sell fear but they forget that China's internal market is bigger than all of them combined.
Yeah, I think it is bs too.
There are only two possibilities I can think of.
One is that this is another attempt to isolate China from its trading partners. This is particularly lame effort, because the only way that that goal can be achieved is for those who sign up to this digital trade block is required not to do the same with China, in terms of digital trade or in the case China develops it own set of rules. Slim chance countries are willing to cut themselves off from the China market voluntarily.
Two is that this could be a preemptive attempt to set the standard in digital trade, and thereby force or influence the other participants later. This possibility is probably more closer to what the Biden people hope to achieve, which is set the standard for this digit trade.
The problem here for this second possibility, to set the standard before anyone else can, we got to know what this actually applies too. That's why this idea is so typical of the Biden people. They insist on setting the rules, no matter how silly it may be.
For example, the DECP. China will roll it out, and probably start using it in international trade soon. Suppose another country issues a digital currency, and they figure out a way to do transactions between China's digital currency and their own digital currency, settling the foreign exchange and accounts in the process. Is the United States writing the rules for this type of activity? That is even more remarkable when they have low intentions of creating their own greenback digital currency. That seems to me what they are saying, that they will write the rules to this type of digital trade, and that is bs.
For example, the DECP. China will roll it out, and probably start using it in international trade soon. Suppose another country issues a digital currency, and they figure out a way to do transactions between China's digital currency and their own digital currency, settling the foreign exchange and accounts in the process. Is the United States writing the rules for this type of activity? That is even more remarkable when they have low intentions of creating their own greenback digital currency. That seems to me what they are saying, that they will write the rules to this type of digital trade, and that is bs.
Well, think about the B3W BS. They don't have the money, the capacity, the experience, or even the plan to implement such an idea. But they talk about things like transparency, green and such. Yes they want to set the infrastructure development standard for the rest of the world, preferably with them sitting in the room where infrastructure deals are signed between other parties. In other words, they don't have what it takes to do the infrastructure themselves (not even in their own countries), yet they want to set the standard, monitor them, and decide what's right and what's wrong.
Talk about hubris and delusion.
I think this is the beginnings of a digital reserve currency system that the US government wants to establish before China's digital RMB gains momentum. China is the world's largest trading nation by a large margin. It makes sense that the digital RMB becomes a leading global reserve currency since it avoids the US Dollar as an intermediary. This means goodbye to things like the Petrodollar and all other trade that must be transacted in US dollars. In order to prevent this from happening, the US government can mandate trade be funneled through a global clearing house mechanism like a global customs agency where transaction fees can be added on such trade to make up for the lost currency exchange fees that would be lost with digital currency transactions. Also, this would be an indirect way of forcing such trade to be transacted via US dollars, just as much of world trade is today even if the trade isn't between the US and other countries. Why any countries, besides the Anglo 5-eyes countries, would join something like this makes no sense to me though.For example, the DECP. China will roll it out, and probably start using it in international trade soon. Suppose another country issues a digital currency, and they figure out a way to do transactions between China's digital currency and their own digital currency, settling the foreign exchange and accounts in the process. Is the United States writing the rules for this type of activity? That is even more remarkable when they have low intentions of creating their own greenback digital currency. That seems to me what they are saying, that they will write the rules to this type of digital trade, and that is bs.
Look like the crackdown on Cryptocurrency isn't just due to speculative and money laundering but also energy consumption.
As far as I know, most generic top-level domains such as .com and .net are owned and registered by the US-based company Verisign. Therefore the US can seize any domain with .com if they want to, by ordering Verisign.
A lot of major Chinese companies (actually most companies in most countries world wide) use .com domain. So they are all vulnerable to US seizure.
There have been news of the US seizing many .com and .net websites (recently Iranian PressTV) and even .tv (which is based in Tuvalu but run by Verisign).
Is it safe to use .com? What happens to the business (online commerse, communication, data, email addresses etc.) when it's seized? What kind of solutions could there be for more independent internet from the US influence? Anyone with any thoughts on this issue?
A lot of major Chinese companies (actually most companies in most countries world wide) use .com domain. So they are all vulnerable to US seizure.
There have been news of the US seizing many .com and .net websites (recently Iranian PressTV) and even .tv (which is based in Tuvalu but run by Verisign).
Is it safe to use .com? What happens to the business (online commerse, communication, data, email addresses etc.) when it's seized? What kind of solutions could there be for more independent internet from the US influence? Anyone with any thoughts on this issue?
Bitcoin prices are still getting lower slowly. So China has made the right move but not losing profits on bitcoin? But Chinese companies like bitmain are still exporting mining machines.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
China GDP grow 12% YOY in first half of the year. But 8% second quarter
BEIJING — China reported second-quarter GDP growth that came in slightly below expectations, while retail sales and industrial production grew faster than forecast.
The country’s gross domestic product increased 7.9% in the second quarter from a year ago, the National Bureau of Statistics said Thursday. That fell short of Reuters’ estimate of 8.1% growth for the April to June period.
BEIJING — China reported second-quarter GDP growth that came in slightly below expectations, while retail sales and industrial production grew faster than forecast.
The country’s gross domestic product increased 7.9% in the second quarter from a year ago, the National Bureau of Statistics said Thursday. That fell short of Reuters’ estimate of 8.1% growth for the April to June period.