Attachments
-
umadbro.jpeg
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
You have departed the realm of being generally in the right direction with incorrect details to being generally in the wrong direction with a few correct details.
You have fallen to the trap of Western mentality that the loudest person has the upper hand. You treat the outcome of the events, the most important thing by far, as some afterthought while taking displayed aggression during the negotiation process as the most critical point. This is a forgivable mistake to someone who doesn't understand China (or Eastern culture) but only during negotiation phase long before the results have taken their course. After the results are clear, one would have to be a fool to ignore those and focus on the process. China won the trade war. Hands down, the US went into recession, China stayed in growth, and China didn't even follow the terms that the US thought they had earned. Whatever they were given was proven to be outdated and useless; contrary to Trump's loudmouthed claims of being the best negotiator in the world, he fell victim to the best negotiaters in the world because the mark of a bad deal is to walk away thinking you got valuable things only to find later that they are all worthless. And your take-way from this is that China's bending over backwards, surrendered, too scared to fight... they won though but that's not important; they didn't yell like the Americans were yelling and that's what counts.
Now Australia. Coal is the only thing that is being revived; all your other points, wine, seafood, barley (you didn't mention that), meat, have all fallen. The price that Australia paid and is still paying is in the billions.
"Australia’s wine exports to China have plunged to just $12.4 million annually compared with before Beijing imposed punishing tariffs in late 2020."
It looks that wine will be permanent as Chinese suppliers took up the mantel and even with warming ties, they will not be giving that back to Australia simply because Chinese consumers have changed their tastes to Chinese wine, which used to be considered inferior.
"“It could be resumed before May 2023, but this is not confirmed by the Chinese authorities yet,” Mr Sun told the Financial Review."
Basically China's still not taking Australian lobster and has not said when it would.
.
"In 2020, the Chinese mainland imported 253,675 tons of Australian beef, accounting for 12 percent of total beef imports during the period. That was the lowest volume in four years and a decrease of 6.5 percentage points in market share from 2019, according to data from the General Administration of Customs of China.
Still, Australia has been one of the major suppliers of beef to China, despite a decrease. In 2022, Australian beef exports to the Chinese mainland dropped 2 percent year-on-year to 175,127 tons, according to Meat & Livestock Australia.
Meanwhile, other countries, particularly those in South America, have increasingly become major sources of supplies. Brazil has become the top beef source, accounting for about 40 percent of the total.
"The expansion of beef imports from other countries has led to rising competition in the market and the demand for Australian beef, which has no particular advantages in quality and price, is relatively weaker," a trader said.
The Casino Food Co-op CEO Simon Stahl told the Australian Broadcasting Corp that losing the China market had cost the business millions of dollars.
China is also ramping up local beef production for its home market while reducing heavy reliance on any single supplier. In 2022, China's domestic beef supply accounted for 73 percent of its overall beef consumption. In the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021-25), the self-sufficiency rate of beef is expected to reach 85 percent."
Aussies want a resumption; but so far, it's their speculation and hope on what China will do. They still have to earn it, whatever leftover Beijing is willing to give.
As for the submarine deal, I have to say, it made me laugh when I saw the amount. The cost was so cartoonishly high it's almost like it's a purposeful signal for people to not get riled up because it won't be completed; did they US think they were dealing with the Saudis?? LOL Australia can't pay and it's gonna be scrapped after a few years. Westerners like saying things and signing things but they don't like doing things. They can keep running thier useless mouths about war with China, but what's not useless is the amount of money it costs them to talk.
Last edited:
It seems the US is trying to keep its nominal GDP above China by inflating the USD. Checkmate commies
The dermal filler approach to economics.
The courts blocked the Trump ban of TikTok due to lack of evidence.
So Biden knows it will have the same exact outcome, but they don't care so long as the appearance on "not look weak on China"...and "they tried"
This is US politics ..... appearance over results.
Quickie
Colonel
And may I add,
China insisted that only Chinese, Arabic, and Persian were used and no English were injured or mistreated during the negotiations.
Maybe they are afraid that China will use the install base of TikTok and build in a e-Yuan digital currency platform to supplant the Petrodollar hegemony...
Imagine if all of a sudden little Timmy stopped putting quarters into the piggyjar and invested it in the e-Yuan...
Lethe
Captain
The Labor government allowed the stratospheric AUKUS cost figure to enter the public discourse because it is setting the stage for political fights to come with the Liberal party. Labor is going to use the cost of AUKUS as a talisman of its commitment to Australia's national security (neutralising a typical line of attack from the Liberal party as it is with all right-wing parties against their left-wing adversaries) and as a club to advance its basic ideology. Labor will probably put reversing the recently enacted "Stage 3" tax cuts for wealthy Australians (that are estimated to reduce government revenue by AUD $120bn over the next decade) on the table at the next election and dare the Liberals to publicly argue for (a) less national security, (b) more "irresponsible" deficit spending or (c) cuts to popular categories of spending such as health, education, etc. instead.
More broadly, folks consistently underestimate the role of domestic politics in shaping statements and policies on foreign matters. Most relevantly, American attitudes, statements and policies towards China have very little to do with China and everything to do with domestic politics in America. There is some relationship between the outside world and the domestic discourse, but it is greatly attenuated if not outright distorted by the "Rube Goldberg machine" that is the domestic political apparatus.
The more powerful a country is, the more the domestic discourse predominates over the external reality. For a small, weak nation, the costs of a large divergence between internal discourse and external reality can be immediate and severe. For America, decades of policy failure towards Cuba, Iran, North Korea etc. has no discernible effect on the discourse because America's power shields it from the consequences of failure. Political discourse in America regarding Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, Ukraine, Israel, etc. cannot be understood by reference to those countries, rather they are just symbols tossed around by various players in what is overwhelmingly a circular-internal debate about what it means to be America.
This is one of the reasons why I disagree with the optimists who argue that catastrophic conflicts are unlikely because nobody wants such a conflict and will therefore not act in such a way as to precipitate it. This ignores the aforementioned tendency for the statements, policies, actions of powerful nations to be only distantly related to reality as it is experienced by the other.
Last edited: