Jura The idiot
General
as to your second point (designated "1)" above):
what was it, according to you, the Chinese should had done, exactly?
Trade War with China
- Thread starter Ultra
- Start date
- Status
what was it, according to you, the Chinese should had done, exactly?
Substitutions take years or decades to make, not one year or 5 months.
Therefor, it is not some Chinese authority, but the whole Chinese population not "done" our jobs, that includes you (if you are from mainland China) not doing your share of job.
Demanding result is always easier than doing the work. Instead of blaming ZTE, the authority or other Chinese not doing the job, you can join a Chinese chip company and make it work.
Jura The idiot
General
plawolf
Lieutenant General
This is not the final ruling. It’s an olive branch for sure, but China has left itself the option to quickly and easily reimpose these tarrifs pretty much any time it wants.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Interesting read, but I would stop short at calling it good.
It’s always amusing seeing western authors (having a Chinese name does not preclude one from having a thoroughly westernised mindset. Indeed, as with religion, it’s often the new converts who are the most zealous at loudly and publically embracing the established ‘correct’ way of thinking) doing mental gymnastics trying to explain China’s unprecedented economic success by steadfastly avoiding any serious considerations of the most import factor - it’s way of governance.
This author went as far as to invent a new term just to avoid having to drill down to the true reasons, and instead assigns almost all the good work the Chinese government has done to enable and foster China’s growth to random luck.
This author does touch upon governance, but listed it last, and did so with only the most superficial and fleeting of touches, and moves on after ticking that box with indecent haste. Only giving Beijing credit for setting goals and building infrastructure. But any idiot can set fantastical goals, it’s how you go about actually achieving those goals that set China apart and where the most insightful lessons are to be learnt. But good luck seeing a western writer giving that a good objectively analysis.
China’s superb human capital did not simply magically happen. Having a vast population is no assurance of having enough people of a high enough caliber of human capital to become a keystone driver of economic success, as was the case with China. Just ask India.
China’s current human capital dividends are the fruits of decades of heavy and sustained personal and government investment in education.
There is indeed a social attitude dynamic which made this investment possible and so effective, but mere social values without good, effective and determined government policy and funding support would have at best achieved mixed results, with only the rich and well-off being able to afford world class facilities after pooling resources, whereby creating a two tier system that would have created social conflict, and also reduced the overall effectiveness of the education system by preventing the most able in society from getting the best education, with that privilege instead reserved for only the rich.
I honestly have no idea where he was going with his racial homogeneity tangent, just go to any football or other sporting derby match to see how effective racial or social homogeneity is at peventing rivalry and conflict from developing in society.
Again, China’s social stability and harmony is far more a result of determined and careful government policy and investment rather than blind luck, or some made up magical meta-power nonsense. The west loves to cite the fact that China spends more on domestic security than it does on its military to invoke a sense of an Orwellian big brother state, but it’s that huge investment in security and crime prevention that makes Chinese society so harmonious. The lack of politicians pitching people against each other to further their own personal ambitions also doesn’t hurt.
But racial composition has little if anything to do with it.
Indeed, the oddly illogical fascination with racial purity and social homogeneity feels uncomfortably like a nod and backdoor approval of the ‘Make America White Again’ lurch to the extreme right.
It’s no wonder at all that the National Interest would run this piece.
solarz
Brigadier
Homogeneity, ha! China is about as homogenous as the European Union.
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
now I read (it's a part of Regular Press Conference of the Ministry of Commerce (April 19, 2018) ):
"Economic Daily: I have three questions. First, on Apr.17th, both the US and UK issued bans on ZTE. What’s MOFCOM’s comment? Second, following the ZTE ban, it’s reported that the US might forbid Alibaba to provide cloud computing service in the US or obstruct its business expansion in the US until China lifts its restrictions on US companies. What’s MOFCOM’s response? Third, MOFCOM announced anti-dumping measures on US sorghum on the afternoon of the same day. Is this a hit-back at the US?
Gao Feng: With respect to the ZTE case, we’ve made our stance clear. I’d like to reiterate that China will follow the situation closely and is ready to take necessary measures anytime to protect the rights of Chinese companies.
At the same time, we’ve also noted that the US action has caused broad market concern about US trade and investment environment. The US action targets China in appearance, but will hurt the US itself in the end. It will not only cost the US tens of thousands of jobs, but also affect thousands of related US companies. More importantly, this will undermine the confidence of the international community in the stability of US investment and business environment. It’s hoped that the US will not fancy itself smart, or it’ll only reap what it has sown.
As for the sorghum anti-dumping case, it’s an isolated trade remedy case whose investigation and determination are in strict compliance with WTO rules and Chinese law. Thank you."
"Economic Daily: I have three questions. First, on Apr.17th, both the US and UK issued bans on ZTE. What’s MOFCOM’s comment? Second, following the ZTE ban, it’s reported that the US might forbid Alibaba to provide cloud computing service in the US or obstruct its business expansion in the US until China lifts its restrictions on US companies. What’s MOFCOM’s response? Third, MOFCOM announced anti-dumping measures on US sorghum on the afternoon of the same day. Is this a hit-back at the US?
Gao Feng: With respect to the ZTE case, we’ve made our stance clear. I’d like to reiterate that China will follow the situation closely and is ready to take necessary measures anytime to protect the rights of Chinese companies.
At the same time, we’ve also noted that the US action has caused broad market concern about US trade and investment environment. The US action targets China in appearance, but will hurt the US itself in the end. It will not only cost the US tens of thousands of jobs, but also affect thousands of related US companies. More importantly, this will undermine the confidence of the international community in the stability of US investment and business environment. It’s hoped that the US will not fancy itself smart, or it’ll only reap what it has sown.
As for the sorghum anti-dumping case, it’s an isolated trade remedy case whose investigation and determination are in strict compliance with WTO rules and Chinese law. Thank you."
- Status