airsuperiority
Captain
that explained yourself. Thanks. Now I know what you need.
Here:
That's my canned response, and you're the first recipient. Enjoy!
Hong Kong....Occupy Central Demonstrations....
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
that explained yourself. Thanks. Now I know what you need.
Here:
That's my canned response, and you're the first recipient. Enjoy!
SamuraiBlue
Captain
From a neutral perspective on a purely economic stand point I believe Beijing may kill the hen that lays the golden egg.
From how I see it Beijing is taking over the same system that the British enforced so in terms of political system it is the same.
On the other hand foreign investors had different set of rules from the ones that is enforced in mainland China with lot more leeway utilizing the same freedom in business practice as it was back in the British colonial days with ensured freedom.
At the moment Beijing is casting doubts on that part and investors moving on speculation will certainly consider the risks connecting to bad for business. It may settle down to no change but at that time the damage have been done which will take a certain time to recover or not recover at all thus the result of killing the hen.
From how I see it Beijing is taking over the same system that the British enforced so in terms of political system it is the same.
On the other hand foreign investors had different set of rules from the ones that is enforced in mainland China with lot more leeway utilizing the same freedom in business practice as it was back in the British colonial days with ensured freedom.
At the moment Beijing is casting doubts on that part and investors moving on speculation will certainly consider the risks connecting to bad for business. It may settle down to no change but at that time the damage have been done which will take a certain time to recover or not recover at all thus the result of killing the hen.
Equation
Lieutenant General
So...is it partly about religion? I'm just curious that's all after reading this article.
Leaving the political nature of the protest aside, many of these economic grievances protesters expressed are not really new. Issues like high living costs, impossibility of home ownership for lower middle class, underfunded social safety net, real inflation outpacing wages, overcrowded public schools are also ever present in developed western democracies.
Even true universal suffrage is not a magic wand when it comes to economic issues. It isn't going to affect any meaningful changes to these problems much less a new Chief Executive. When it comes down it, the problem is money or more succinctly whose money are going to be used for more affordable housings, more public infrastructures, paying higher wages, better social benefits?
1)The rich and/or corporations? Without capital control, they will move their money away real quick not to mention jobs too.
2)The HK government? (basically everyone pays) Higher taxes for all, not really a popular solution. People will still complain and protest in the future.
3)The future? Borrowing from the future through debt issuance, protesting youths and young adults are going to get more angry because they are paying for everybody else assuming they have taken some economy classes.
Which solution you preferred is dependent on every individual's current social economic status. The basic sentiment is that there is no easy solutions to systematic economic inequalities. Almost everyone prefers to combat these inequalities with somebody else's money.
So when protesters asking for a "new CE for Hong Kong", I think they are asking for a CE to represent economically disfranchised HK citizens. That's all good and dandy. But I hope protesters themselves reach a consensus on who will pay for all the changes they are asking and prepare to deal with the potential negative consequences of those changes.
Otherwise, nothing substantial economically would change after the euphoria of "fight the power" blows over.
Airsuperiority I hope you have more discussions with the protesters asking them how they want to fund all the economic demands.
BTW I didn't include Beijing as a payer in the solution because asking more handouts from a government that some want to see gone is very hypocritical.
Even true universal suffrage is not a magic wand when it comes to economic issues. It isn't going to affect any meaningful changes to these problems much less a new Chief Executive. When it comes down it, the problem is money or more succinctly whose money are going to be used for more affordable housings, more public infrastructures, paying higher wages, better social benefits?
1)The rich and/or corporations? Without capital control, they will move their money away real quick not to mention jobs too.
2)The HK government? (basically everyone pays) Higher taxes for all, not really a popular solution. People will still complain and protest in the future.
3)The future? Borrowing from the future through debt issuance, protesting youths and young adults are going to get more angry because they are paying for everybody else assuming they have taken some economy classes.
Which solution you preferred is dependent on every individual's current social economic status. The basic sentiment is that there is no easy solutions to systematic economic inequalities. Almost everyone prefers to combat these inequalities with somebody else's money.
So when protesters asking for a "new CE for Hong Kong", I think they are asking for a CE to represent economically disfranchised HK citizens. That's all good and dandy. But I hope protesters themselves reach a consensus on who will pay for all the changes they are asking and prepare to deal with the potential negative consequences of those changes.
Otherwise, nothing substantial economically would change after the euphoria of "fight the power" blows over.
Airsuperiority I hope you have more discussions with the protesters asking them how they want to fund all the economic demands.
BTW I didn't include Beijing as a payer in the solution because asking more handouts from a government that some want to see gone is very hypocritical.
Last edited:
The politics is more important than the economics here, I think.
Beijing would be willing to see a substantial decrease in HK GDP if it meant it would prevent uncontrolled democracy that could tend to independence etc. That said, I think there is room for compromise if te protesters changed their narrative a little.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
The leaders said they wouldn't give up and wouldn't go away if Beijing doesn't accede to their demands, but are those the only consequences? What other unpleasantness have the protesters listed as their "or else?"
Skywatcher
Captain
They've threatened to widen the protests (whatever that means), or a labor strike (which is ridiculous, any meaningful strike will cause economic damage). The government building occupation is a non-starter, and will get them tear gassed again at the very least.
They could try to occupy a PLA base or break into a police armory, but that's not just insane, that's "going three times to the far side of the Moon with a spa treatment on Venus" insane.
Like I said, they should use this political momentum to build a political mobilization for the long haul, not double down.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Hard to see how the protagonists could widen the protests, it seems everyone with a beef against Beijing is already there.
Did the parents of protesting students agree to strike on their say so?
I'd say let the students deface government buildings, except they'd probably ransack businesses too. Yeah, better stick with tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.
But the amusement factor would be high.
Agreed.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Bringing up Christians is purely a political tactic. They're trying to introduce Christians into the mix to get support from Christians in the Western world. Of course these are the most polite protestors... by design. When they don't get what they want my bet they will lie about something to have an excuse for the use of violence.
I find it strange that Hong Kongers brag about the economic prosperity of Hong Kong yet they're angry at Beijing? The only thing I've seen is Hong Kongers angry at every thing to do with Mainlanders in Hong Kong. Then they say they don't hate Mainlanders but the government?
Let's not forget these activists are not defenders of freedom. That's another tactic to identify with and get the West involved. Jackie Chan has an opinion and it doesn't follow these activists. He doesn't bash them. He doesn't insult them. But when he speaks up giving his opinion, they attack him with all fury just for giving his opinion. Yeah they'll give you the freedom to follow what they believe... It's no different from the history of pro-Taiwan factions in the Chinese-American communities who thought they were on the side of right because they were pro-American. And because of that they thought they could use threats and intimidation to make sure the Chinese community steered towards their agenda.
If they're not for independence, what is it then? All the stuff I read is complaining about what Mainlanders are doing in Hong Kong. Having democracy has nothing to do with that. They say they don't hate Mainlanders but instead the government? Do they want Beijing to prevent Mainlanders having the freedom to travel? It's all a bunch of contradictory nonsense if it's unclear what these protestors want? Is it as simple as they're craving for attention? It does explain why Hong Kongers were stupid playing drama queen during the handover scaring away money and Western expatriates. They actually thought the West was going violate on a treaty from an ugly part of Western colonial history, especially with all that nonsense about how they care about the rule of law, wasting their lives in a war with China?
I find it strange that Hong Kongers brag about the economic prosperity of Hong Kong yet they're angry at Beijing? The only thing I've seen is Hong Kongers angry at every thing to do with Mainlanders in Hong Kong. Then they say they don't hate Mainlanders but the government?
Let's not forget these activists are not defenders of freedom. That's another tactic to identify with and get the West involved. Jackie Chan has an opinion and it doesn't follow these activists. He doesn't bash them. He doesn't insult them. But when he speaks up giving his opinion, they attack him with all fury just for giving his opinion. Yeah they'll give you the freedom to follow what they believe... It's no different from the history of pro-Taiwan factions in the Chinese-American communities who thought they were on the side of right because they were pro-American. And because of that they thought they could use threats and intimidation to make sure the Chinese community steered towards their agenda.
If they're not for independence, what is it then? All the stuff I read is complaining about what Mainlanders are doing in Hong Kong. Having democracy has nothing to do with that. They say they don't hate Mainlanders but instead the government? Do they want Beijing to prevent Mainlanders having the freedom to travel? It's all a bunch of contradictory nonsense if it's unclear what these protestors want? Is it as simple as they're craving for attention? It does explain why Hong Kongers were stupid playing drama queen during the handover scaring away money and Western expatriates. They actually thought the West was going violate on a treaty from an ugly part of Western colonial history, especially with all that nonsense about how they care about the rule of law, wasting their lives in a war with China?
Last edited:
- Status