- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
An evil authoritarian regime that is committing human rights abuses and does not follow democratic norms … but we’ll do billions of dollars worth of trade with them and base a lot of our industries around trading with them. But they’re still evil.
Are you talking about China or the US?
yes
Yeah that tracks, same with Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Being aware of America’s abuses of power is good. Being contrarian and acting like everything they’ve ever said about China is a lie is bad.
most of what they say about it is a lie though.
How do you know?
The case of Smart Shirts Limited vs Sheffield Hallam University was heard in the High Court, King’s Bench Division, Media and Communications List. The judgment was delivered by Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre on December 17, 2024. The dispute centered around a libel claim brought by Smart Shirts Limited, a Hong Kong-based garment supplier, against Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) over a report and emails alleging connections to forced labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR)…
The court determined that both the email and the report were defamatory at common law, as they could adversely affect the attitude of others towards Smart Shirts. The judgment emphasized that the publications were presented as factual findings based on extensive research, thereby influencing their perceived credibility.
Notably, the truth is a defense in defamation cases. If I publish an article saying my extensive research shows you cheated on your taxes, you won’t win a libel case against me if my research actually shows you did cheat on your taxes. That the university couldn’t win by simply showing that their accusations were truthful is damning.
The resilient tale of an early morning Tiananmen massacre stems from several false eyewitness accounts in the confused hours and days after the crackdown. Human rights experts George Black and Robin Munro, both outspoken critics of the Chinese government, trace many of the rumor’s roots in their 1993 book, Black Hands of Beijing: Lives of Defiance in China’s Democracy Movement. Probably the most widely disseminated account appeared first in the Hong Kong press: a Qinghua University student described machine guns mowing down students in front of the Monument to the People’s Heroes in the middle of the square. The New York Times gave this version prominent display on June 12, just a week after the event, but no evidence was ever found to confirm the account or verify the existence of the alleged witness. Times reporter Nicholas Kristof challenged the report the next day, in an article that ran on the bottom of an inside page; the myth lived on. Student leader Wu’er Kaixi said he had seen 200 students cut down by gunfire, but it was later proven that he left the square several hours before the events he described allegedly occurred.
This should also be viewed in context of the U.S. directly funding anti-China media. If you aren’t real interested in factual reporting to begin with and you add a heap of intentionally negative propaganda on top, the only reasonable conclusion is that most of your accusations range from grossly exaggerated to bullshit.
This was a couple of years ago but I think the numbers are still the same: sending a shipping container from Hong Kong to Newark cost about $3000 while sending the same container in the opposite direction cost about $500. This is because we badly want the shit China makes while they don’t want anything we make (the same situation that led Great Britain to force China to accept opium at gunpoint almost two hundred years ago). Sending a container to China is so cheap that for a stretch we were actually filling them with our garbage because it was less expensive to dispose of it there.
Anyone who think this represents economic weakness on China’s part is batshit crazy.
Containers as cheap home starting points in US is also a function of this dynamic. No need to ship empty ones back to Asia.
The problem isn’t the lack of ability to build new houses, it’s the lack of land that’s in a liveable area, zoned for new development and not already taken. The land doesn’t exist.
This is because we badly want the shit China makes while they don’t want anything we make
That’s not entirely true. China produces a lot of low-margin industrial goods that Americans then assemble into finished products. Americans produce an assortment of agricultural and mineral goods that are in high demand in China (oilseeds and grains, particularly soybeans, followed by mineral fuels and oil). We also produce a number of high-margin technology components (include aircraft and parts, electrical machinery and TV parts, and nuclear reactor parts and mechanical appliances) that are expensive but comparatively smaller by volume than the products China sends our way.
Think of it this way. If China sends us a pound of feathers and we send them a pound of iron, even if they’re the same price one of them is going to fill up a shipping container a lot faster than the other. The end result is a net positive number of shipping containers coming into the US.
Anyone who think this represents economic weakness on China’s part is batshit crazy.
It’s a generally symbiotic relationship and one that any neoliberal economist would laud. We’ve stratified our industrial economies such that we’re highly specialized in respective fields. It isn’t weakness on either side’s part any more than the heart is stronger/weaker than the lungs because one beats faster than the other breaths.
Oh man, nice.
Open up for trade! Wait no you’re not supposed to benefit, only us!
It is economy
Run the gauntlet yeye
China has a demographics that will severely kick it in its balls very soon, and that is probably an understatement.
Much like the US, they can simultaneously have an economy that SHOULD collapse, but also be so ingrained in global trade that nobody is actually willing to call them to the carpet.
If China were Greece, they’d probably have gone bankrupt multiple times already.
What exactly does “should” mean in this context? Either it does it it doesn’t, and saying it “should” just sounds like saying reality is wrong for not conforming to your economic theory.
