Huawei arrest, US-China relations and effect on electronics industry

[IconicPCB]

"We are ready to govern....

We have a spending plan for 6.6 bilion dollars..."

Bill Shorten's words somewhat paraphrased

[blueskull]

How is that less hypocritical than the west you like to regularly qualify as such here?

Chinese government is unfair, that's true. But it didn't try to hide it.
Literally in the constitution is says the power belongs to the people, practiced through the representatives of the people, which are elected by lower level of people's representatives recursively.
Due to the human nature of clinging onto power, the higher level the election goes, the higher level of elitism it is.
In other words, power of China as a country is practiced by the elites. The constitution never tried to hide that.

Human rights gives citizens a minimum of protection from the state. It says the state (and anyone else) isn't allowed to murder me, torture me or turn me into a slave.

China has a fairly loose political principle among dictator countries. In China, the law allows you to say anything, as long as you don't suggest acts and you don't invade other people's freedom, such as doxing people.
Similarly, even if you said something that suggests acts that damages Chinese communist party's fundamental interests, you are just asked to shut up.
Many Chinese people looking for immigration to the west use this trick. Conduct anti-communism, get a few month of sentence, maybe even carried out out of jail, then get political asylum of a western country.
For most of the time, even that will not happen. You only get your posts deleted, or your government ID banned on several major forums, and that's it.

Only people with death wish to take down the government get erased.
For anyone with any amount of flex in political views, they will live in China just fine.
If you choose to fight Chinese government, and made it clear that only one can survive, then you've asked for it.

[Mr. Scram]

Chinese government is unfair, that's true. But it didn't try to hide it.
Literally in the constitution is says the power belongs to the people, practiced through the representatives of the people, which are elected by lower level of people's representatives recursively.
Due to the human nature of clinging onto power, the higher level the election goes, the higher level of elitism it is.
In other words, power of China as a country is practiced by the elites. The constitution never tried to hide that.

China has a fairly loose political principle among dictator countries. In China, the law allows you to say anything, as long as you don't suggest acts and you don't invade other people's freedom, such as doxing people.
Similarly, even if you said something that suggests acts that damages Chinese communist party's fundamental interests, you are just asked to shut up.
Many Chinese people looking for immigration to the west use this trick. Conduct anti-communism, get a few month of sentence, maybe even carried out out of jail, then get political asylum of a western country.
For most of the time, even that will not happen. You only get your posts deleted, or your government ID banned on several major forums, and that's it.

Only people with death wish to take down the government get erased.
For anyone with any amount of flex in political views, they will live in China just fine.
If you choose to fight Chinese government, and made it clear that only one can survive, then you've asked for it.

Hold on. It's unfair and doesn't try to hide it, but proclaims its power belongs to the people? Isn't that proclaiming you're by and and for all and not actually being it, even by law?

I accept that coming from different backgrounds and environments creates different views, but I'm trying to wrap my head around this one.

[cdev]

In defense of our Legislators it appears to me that only the Senate really knows about this huge change they made. Possibly only a few Senators really understand it in its full sense.

The House has plausible deniability in case the s*** hits the fan in some way. Because it could turn into a MAJOR disaster. It already did actually, in 2008. IMHO.

Read https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S006.aspx?Query=(@Symbol=%20gats/sc/*)%20and%20((%20@Title=%20united%20states%20)%20or%20(@CountryConcerned=%20united%20states))&Language=ENGLISH&Context=FomerScriptedSearch&languageUIChanged=true# (Supplement #3)

Filed February 26, 1998 (the very last day)

last page, top, the single line where it says how the Glass-Steagall Act was going to be reformed and why.

[cdev]

The URAA was signed December 8. 1994 by President Bill Clinton, and became effective January 1, 1995. Also thats when the first set of changes went into effect in the US, EU and the other original WTO Member nations. Read up on the progressive liberalisation of services. Progressive in this context means a one way street.  Regulating governments. 

The new plurilateral which is also being sponsored by Australia, is "opt out" instead of "opt in" like its predecessor, so it is really quite 'ambitious' as they put it.

In the people of the EU's case a notice has been provided here: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6891-2013-ADD-1-DCL-1/en/pdf




 

[blueskull]

Hold on. It's unfair and doesn't try to hide it, but proclaims its power belongs to the people? Isn't that proclaiming you're by and and for all and not actually being it, even by law?

The power belongs to the people and is practiced by the elites among the people. Does it contradict itself? It seems perfectly fine to me.

[beanflying]

Hold on. It's unfair and doesn't try to hide it, but proclaims its power belongs to the people? Isn't that proclaiming you're by and and for all and not actually being it, even by law?

The power belongs to the people and is practiced by the elites among the people. Does it contradict itself? It seems perfectly fine to me.

Fundamentally wrong the 'people' have little or no power to change anything. You the 'people' are told how to behave or else by your elite.

Power to change or attempt change is something most countries in the world allow. Totalitarian, Despotic and Religiously run states cling to power by reducing or removing the power of the people.

[Mr. Scram]

The power belongs to the people and is practiced by the elites among the people. Does it contradict itself? It seems perfectly fine to me.

It's like saying "this cake belongs to us all" and then eating the entire thing yourself. The initial statement doesn't appear to be true.

[cdev]

Apis,

This varies a lot from country to country. Unfortunately, collectively (speaking of the entire world) we failed to take the advice of Franz Neumann - read up on the arguments advanced by Neumann during the Nuremberg trial of fascist jurist Carl Schmitt in the immediate aftermath of WWII. They laid out some general principles of liberal democracy but those principles have run into a brick wall in the form of the aforementioned neoliberalism.

The governments for some countries are not democratic and they objected. So in the interests of business and investors we now have a world without many 'rights' which should have been established by now. We're actually going backwards. In particular rights to necessities are not established, if they are sold by anybody in a country. It may actually become FTA illegal for countries to reserve food for their poorest members, etc. Freedom is increasingly framed as the freedom to buy and sell.

I also highly recommend Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism" which can be found online at https://monoskop.org/images/4/4e/Arendt_Hannah_The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism_1962.pdf -

Some treaties have attempted to advance universal human rights, with mixed success.

Human rights gives citizens a minimum of protection from the state. It says the state (and anyone else) isn't allowed to murder me, torture me or turn me into a slave. I prefer to keep my human rights thank you. Your definition of cult is strange.

The best definition of a cult was advanced by Robert J. Lifton in his "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China"

There is a page on Wikipedia about it but its deliberately perhaps been obfuscated so the description is not very good or understandable. There are far better web pages to read about Lifton's book if you're not going to buy it. What he says about cults holds true for all cults. We live in a very cult-like society today, with a number of different cults all demanding you suspend your logical mind and give them your complete allegiance.

Another good description of cult-like thinking was written by Irving Janis in his study of 'groupthink' .

North Korea's communism, which is by all accounts, questioned by a larger and larger number of North Koreans is based on Chinese Communism of the 1950s and 60s and is perhaps the purest example of a cult today, but even it is in serious trouble. Other cults are likely found in the US and EU and the other Anglo-speaking countries, with neoliberalism, which is very powerful, and based on a lot of long debunked economic theories, and definitely a cult, perhaps still China, but honestly, I dont feel qualified to say, Om Shinrikyo in Japan, the Aum group was definitely a cult.

[apis]

Many "western countries" violate the human rights too, but many at least try. Here in Europe were we have the European Court of Human Rights for example, and we no longer use the death penalty. I don't get why China doesn't embrace at least the bulk of it, it's pretty basic stuff. Now the Chinese government just open themselves up to easy criticism. I don't get why they US doesn't abolish the death penalty either though.

The six communist countries abstentions centred around the view that the Declaration did not go far enough in condemning fascism and Nazism. Eleanor Roosevelt attributed the abstention of Soviet bloc countries to Article 13, which provided the right of citizens to leave their countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

cdev:
Thanks for the reading advice, sounds interesting. I also like Hannah Arendt.

[blueskull]

Fundamentally wrong the 'people' have little or no power to change anything. You the 'people' are told how to behave or else by your elite.

The difference being in China, everyone has a chance of being elite.
The majority of successful business persons in China are born just as every other civilian.
You don't be an elite then be successful. You be successful then be an elite.

The earnings elasticity in China is high, at 60%, way higher than average western countries, but very close to certain western countries with high rich people concentration.
The earnings elasticity in US and Italy is 47%, UK being 50%, and Luxembourg at 75%.

[cdev]

Fundamentally wrong the 'people' have little or no power to change anything. You the 'people' are told how to behave or else by your elite.

Power to change or attempt change is something most countries in the world allow. Totalitarian, Despotic and Religiously run states cling to power by reducing or removing the power of the people.

This is no longer true as I have been trying to explain. because it is framed as conflicting with the new economic governance institutions, who hold the real power. This is not a secret, if you know where to look.

Its a diagnostic sign of totalitarianism (See Arendt, page 413) when real power is held by an power structure which duplicates the functionality of the old traditional institutions and the people are left barking up the wrong tree, in a futile attempt to change policy, when of course that power has moved elsewhere.

Google the phrase 'inverted totalitarianism' .

The test is of course whether the people could vote to actually effect change and have it happen.

If you think about it, in a pluralist state, if both parties are in on the game, there is no way to bring that about.

This is why, for example, in the US in 2016, it was unspoken that Bernie Sanders could not win in the Democratic Party. Because his entire platform was violative of GATS the 1995 treaty and were he to have won, then there would be a demand to implement that platform, which would cause a huge ruckus in the WTO and basically threaten all of the trade deals.

Democracy makes peoples lives better but its being prevented because people voting for things they need would cut into the expected profits of TNCs.



I think that for this reason, the (US) Democrats deliberately lost in 2016. Despite Sanders huge popularity and a guaranteed win there, they couldn't risk a victory, there would be too much pressure to fix things.

[cdev]

Please clarify what you mean. Do you mean via the college entrance examination?  What about the Uigurs? Or the millions of children - many the children of North Korean women who are persona non grata and live in fear for their lives in China. Their poor children who have no 'hukou' and don't exist? What about the 'migrants' who are unable to get permission to live in urban areas but who go there for work? What about people with 'bad family background'? I would be surprised if the social mobility there was as good or better than in in the EU's most equal states even with the narrow but significant improvements in income for the well educated and lucky. It depends a lot on who you are and who you know. certainly China HAS done much better than India, though in creating a middle class. They have come a long way, thats true, and thats likely because there has been pressure on them to do right by their people. But in many ways the government there is really clueless - at least as far as understanding what the rest of the world expects of them.

I do understand what you are trying to say and I am mulling your argument that its better to know where people really stand than to be lied to. You have to understand that there are certain things that would drive people half mad if they knew them, especially naive young people. But, they would eventually get a grip on the situation and would make plans based on reality and not false hopes.

Fundamentally wrong the 'people' have little or no power to change anything. You the 'people' are told how to behave or else by your elite.

The difference being in China, everyone has a chance of being elite.
The majority of successful business persons in China are born just as every other civilian.
You don't be an elite then be successful. You be successful then be an elite.

The earnings elasticity in China is high, at 60%, way higher than average western countries, but very close to certain western countries with high rich people concentration.
The earnings elasticity in US and Italy is 47%, UK being 50%, and Luxembourg at 75%.

[blueskull]

I don't get why China doesn't embrace at least the bulk of it, it's pretty basic stuff.

China doesn't execute many people, instead many people are sentenced to death with 2 year buffer time, which automatically gets bumped to life sentence at the end of the two years if no major crimes are conducted in prison during the two years, which then automatically gets bumped to 20 years imprisonment in two years, again, providing no major violations.

So death sentence in China is really 24-year imprisonment.

Death sentence with immediate (read: one month) execution does get sentenced, but very rare. According to Chinese law, at least one, usually two, of the four extremes can qualify death sentence with immediate execution:

1. Crimes with extreme inhumane methods (say, torture to death)
2. Crimes with extreme negative social influence (say, a cop murders a civilian)
3. Crimes with extreme devastating damage (say, blowing up a plane)
4. Crimes with extreme evil motivation (say, raping a child)

According to several international human right organizations' data, every year China sentences ~5000 death sentences, among them ~1500 are actually executed.
Considering every year Chinese DEA busts a number of armed drug syndicates, and armed drug crimes are usually qualified as death penalty with immediate execution, it's not hard to think the majority of the executed are drug gang members.
That makes the executed death penalty condemned only less than a few hundreds, excluding armed gangs.
For a country with 1.4Bn population, only less than a few hundreds executed per year for assorted reasons seems to be a fairly low percentage.

Another reason that death penalty still exists is that Chinese people like it. The traditional ideology for thousands of years is simple - pay lives with lives, pay money with money.
Multiple questionnaires conducted both by authority and civilian organizations both reveal the absolute vast majority population in China encourages death penalty for those did the absolute unthinkable.

//Edit: there are also two crimes in China that automatically result into death penalty, execute immediately, regardless consequence. One being killing a hostage by the kidnapper, the other being hijacking aircraft with casualties (even if the deceased being a terrorist killed by the resist) or extreme property damage.

[blueskull]

<snip>

Earnings elasticity is the opposite of social mobility. The higher the elasticity, the higher the fortification between classes.

[Mr. Scram]

China doesn't execute many people, instead many people are sentenced to death with 2 year buffer time, which automatically gets bumped to life sentence at the end of the two years if no major crimes are conducted in prison during the two years, which then automatically gets bumped to 20 years imprisonment in two years, again, providing no major violations.

So death sentence in China is really 24-year imprisonment.

Death sentence with immediate (read: one month) execution does get sentenced, but very rare. According to Chinese law, at least one, usually two, of the four extremes can qualify death sentence with immediate execution:

1. Crimes with extreme inhumane methods (say, torture to death)
2. Crimes with extreme negative social influence (say, a cop murders a civilian)
3. Crimes with extreme devastating damage (say, blowing up a plane)
4. Crimes with extreme evil motivation (say, raping a child)

According to several international human right organizations' data, every year China sentences ~5000 death sentences, among them ~1500 are actually executed.
Considering every year Chinese DEA busts a number of armed drug syndicates, and armed drug crimes are usually qualified as death penalty with immediate execution, it's not hard to think the majority of the executed are drug gang members.
That makes the executed death penalty condemned only less than a few hundreds, excluding armed gangs.
For a country with 1.4Bn population, only less than a few hundreds executed per year for assorted reasons seems to be a fairly low percentage.

Another reason that death penalty still exists is that Chinese people like it. The traditional ideology for thousands of years is simple - pay lives with lives, pay money with money.
Multiple questionnaires conducted both by authority and civilian organizations both reveal the absolute vast majority population in China encourages death penalty for those did the absolute unthinkable.

Even if it's "just" 1500 executions, it's still more than all the other nations in the world combined. The fact that the government refuses to release official numbers suggests the numbers aren't favourable. "An eye for an eye" is a common concept in undeveloped parts of the world, which tends to disappear as they develop. It's not a productive or very effective approach. Harsh penalties do not equal effective penalties.

[beanflying]

Fundamentally wrong the 'people' have little or no power to change anything. You the 'people' are told how to behave or else by your elite.

The difference being in China, everyone has a chance of being elite.
The majority of successful business persons in China are born just as every other civilian.
You don't be an elite then be successful. You be successful then be an elite.

The earnings elasticity in China is high, at 60%, way higher than average western countries, but very close to certain western countries with high rich people concentration.
The earnings elasticity in US and Italy is 47%, UK being 50%, and Luxembourg at 75%.

And yet you ignore what is a core difference in China the PEOPLE HAVE NO POWER unless you are of the elite or have Guanxi with the elite or pay bribes to the elite. A farmer or factory worker in China has NO ability to ask, speak about much less demand change of the system. To believe people have power in the Chinese system is just swallowing the parties line of BS.

[blueskull]

Even if it's "just" 1500 executions, it's still more than all the other nations in the world combined. The fact that the government refuses to release official numbers suggests the numbers aren't favourable. "An eye for an eye" is a common concept in undeveloped parts of the world, which tends to disappear as they develop. It's not a productive or very effective approach. Harsh penalties do not equal effective penalties.

American cops, DEA and troops combined kill a few times more than that amount each year.
When I say 1500, I included those captured armed gang members who shot cops before being captured, and those human vessels transporting kilograms of drugs in a swallowed condom.
For various reasons except for gang and drug activities, the number goes below a few hundreds.

I personally know two murderers, both remote family members. Neither got the needle.

[blueskull]

And yet you ignore what is a core difference in China the PEOPLE HAVE NO POWER unless you are of the elite or have Guanxi with the elite or pay bribes to the elite.

That's exactly how my country is designed to be. It's equal, but not fair. The bribe part is to be eliminated, and I agree with you on that part.

The system stimulates everyone to fight for power, thus exciting productivity.

Even in Mao's time it was in the law that China was led by worker class, which at that time, was considered advanced, compared with farmer class.

[cdev]

Whats going to happen in China when AI starts cutting into the jobs that go to people? When the worker class is no more and there is no longer almost any work. Except for the most skilled, really world class talent.

This is inevitable in the not too distant future, in fact its already happening. lets say its 2045 and only 25% of the population has any work at all and most of those jobs are sporadic. Business just runs itself. How will your elite justify their luxurious lives when people are starving and hungry?

Social safety nets are being dismantled.

In the Western countries all the elites are of one mind.  They want to present a united front against "communism", which they very broadly define as people sharing almost anything. Anything that cuts into profits.

Now granted, I am sure they Chinese elites have a cozy relationship with their Western counterparts on certain levels but, lets face it, people are people. And China is a 'peoples republic'. The original one.

 If the government can no longer keep work flowing to the populace, would there be another 1989?

[Mr. Scram]

American cops, DEA and troops combined kill a few times more than that amount each year.
When I say 1500, I included those captured armed gang members who shot cops before being captured, and those human vessels transporting kilograms of drugs in a swallowed condom.
For various reasons except for gang and drug activities, the number goes below a few hundreds.

I personally know two murderers, both remote family members. Neither got the needle.

I honestly can't find that in any numbers from organisations who monitor these kinds of things and the description of what's included seems to describe an actual trial and execution. Not shootings or ad hoc executions during arrest. If this was the case, those DEA deaths would be included too which would level the playing field.

[blueskull]

I honestly can't find that in any numbers from organisations who monitor these kinds of things and the description of what's included seems to describe an actual trial and execution. Not shootings or ad hoc executions during arrest. If this was the case, those DEA deaths would be included too which would level the playing field.

I was including shootings during confronting.

[blueskull]

Whats going to happen in China when AI starts cutting into the jobs that go to people? When the worker class is no more and there is no longer almost any work. Except for the most skilled, really world class talent.

This is inevitable in the not too distant future, in fact its already happening. lets say its 2045 and only 25% of the population has any work at all and most of those jobs are sporadic. Business just runs itself. How will your elite justify their luxurious lives when people are starving and hungry?

I don't think this is going to be a problem in China. Service will be a big part in China's future economy system.
In China, the core value is competition. Human fights human. Everyone wants their kids to win from the starting line.
This means, education, pediatrics and similar fields will have very high market share, over traditional industry.

Even now, China's most rich people, excluding those really rich capitalists and politicians, are doctors and teachers.
It's not hard for a high school teacher to make more than a university professor, thanks the the fierce competition of higher education entrance exam.

Internal competition and cruel society will be the engine of China's society. It provides jobs and circulation of money, at little resource usage.

[cdev]

Large numbers of Americans die of treatable illnesses because of lack of medical care. Even a small medical debt prevents access to the health care system. This is the situation in China and India too. I don't know which is worse.

A LOT of people die because they cant get medical care. They blame it on themselves. This destruction of the poor's self esteem is a particularly insidious form of brainwashing.

In the US its the working poor who fall through the cracks. They make too much to get help but not enough to afford health care.

This guy tried to fix this.


He died a few weeks after this video was taken.

----

Meanwhile, Trump is bonding with Kim Jong Un..

BBC: "Trump on Kim Jong-un: 'We fell in love'

The US president told a rally in Wheeling, West Virginia that the North Korean leader had sent him "beautiful" letters. The pair met in a landmark summit earlier this year after previously exchanging threats."

Here is the problem, a culture of impunity. Study after study shows that we would be smart to not encourage people to aspire to be rich because the rich are far more likely to be amoral and do ethically anti-social things. They are leading the planet into a situation almost guaranteed to end in disaster with lie after lie.

If you ask me, ideology is a trap, what we need is to give people love and mutual respect but doing that requires ending the extreme cult of competition. Because thats what it is.

We don't need to compete like that any more. We're outgrowing any need to. Thats what they are trying so hard to hide.

Its science that is responsible for our advances, not neoliberalism.

[Mr. Scram]

I was including shootings during confronting.

Those don't appear to be included in the numbers in either case.