Miscellaneous News

[ansy1968]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And here is NZ's trade minister explanation:

Valid explanation by NZ but it is still siding with Australia at the end of the day

@voyager1 bro its a dog and pony show, that process may take years to settled and a big IF will China comply? If the Aussie won its a pyrrhic victory cause they had alienated their biggest customer and choose not to buy from them anymore.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And here is NZ's trade minister explanation:

Valid explanation by NZ but it is still siding with Australia at the end of the day

@voyager1 bro its a dog and pony show, that process may take years to settled and a big IF will China comply? If the Aussie won its a pyrrhic victory cause they had alienated their biggest customer and choose not to buy from them anymore.

Exactly. New Zealand don't have the balls........ Or ....... mmm....

 

[manqiangrexue]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the basis of the PRC Constitution. You are free to disagree with the reality of it, but then all you are really doing is questioning the legitimacy of the CPC. It doesn't change the fact that the CPC believes itself to be ruling China through Marxist principles.

I don't disagree with any reality but actions speak louder than words. What someone says or believes is only a background to what they are doing. I asked you by what mechanisms Chinese people exert more control over their economy and you don't have an answer. You just gave me a name and told me, this is what the CCP says and believes. I asked for real functional mechanisms. They are what matter.

Again, nothing says you can't strive for wealth in Socialism.

Nothing except the core principle that social inequality needs to be diminished and if you are accumulating wealth at a rate far above the average then you are detrimental to this core goal.

Size is irrelevant. SOEs serve as a means for regulating China's economy, in accordance with Socialist principles.

Everything else equal, size is the difference between then and now so size is the only relevance in this comparison.

Look, here's a simple question: is China in 2021 a more or less equal society than China in 2001?

Look, here's a better and simpler question: is China in 2021 a more or less equal society than China in 1949?

That is the only criteria that matters. If I did not feel that China was a far more equal society today than it was 20 years ago, I would not be here arguing with you about China being socialist.

Why 20? Why not all the way back to 1949 at the founding of the PRC?

If this is the basis of your argument, then it cannot stand. Simply look at all the nations in the world and see that many have greater social equality in 2021 than 2001. You will argue that they are all socialist?

In fact, I would argue that the wealth gap has peaked. With the elimination of absolute poverty and the rise of the Chinese middle-class, we will see in the coming years a sustained reduction of the wealth gap.

That's good, but it's not a function exclusive to socialist economies.

First, Capitalism and Socialism exist on a spectrum, therefore it is expected that many self-professed capitalist countries have socialist policies to regulate the worst depredations of capitalism. That is what your "maturing free market" and "natural evolution of society" means.

Speaking of natural evolution, Socialism is the natural evolution of Capitalism. Unions, environmental regulations, anti-trust laws, labour laws, these are all socialist policies. In fact, many so-called capitalist countries are closer to the Socialist end of the spectrum than to the Capitalist end. Therefore, just because some capitalist countries also do something doesn't mean what China did is not socialist.

You're the one using actions that occur in both capitalist nations and China as evidence that China is socialist. The commonalities between China and the world's successful capitalist economies don't prove that China is capitalist, and I never made that claim, but they sure as heck can't be used as evidence for the opposite.

Second, the Chinese people have far more control over their country than people in the West have over theirs. For one thing, the Chinese government answers to the people and only to the people, while Western politicians answer only to their corporate overlords.

You cannot give a working mechanism for this, only theory and vague concepts.

The most important difference between a capitalist country and a socialist country is simply who is in charge. Is it the Capitalists, who control the politicians through lobbyism and campaign donations, or is it a party of 90 million people, drawn from all walks of life, answerable only to the people whom they serve, and who has demonstrated that service through national emergencies?

It's both the elite controlling the common people. In neither of these systems do the people constitute anything close to a dictatorship in any way that would be untrue for the other. I mean in terms of working mechanisms, not vague slogans.

 

[hullopilllw]

Any way to get the 60mins today in which Australia portrays NZ as some back stabber ?

 

[manqiangrexue]

@manqiangrexue I wont get into long debates with you, because i'm bored but we have to distinct some things. Of course markets played a huge role to human societies but in the pure essence is not the cooperation as you said (lol for the mental gym) but profit and expoitation. That's a wrong drive.

Drive doesn't matter; result matters. If your drive was to become rich and the result is that in order to achieve your goal, you invented technology that bettered your society, it matters not that you did it for selfish reasons. That is why capitalism is stronger than socialism by far. The result in that story you just made is that two people who could do nothing with what they had alone came together and made something. They forced it on no one, but gave everyone a choice to pay for your product/service. That is not exploitation. Slavery is exploitation; selling goods/services at a price that you deem too high is not. Just walk away instead of complaining if you don't like the deal.

That's not cooperation, cooperation is between equals.

English Fail.

Cooperation- noun, "the process of working together to the same end."

It says nothing about equality.

Back on the paradigm to solarz. You, as a wheat grower, whom crop destroyed by locusts, you have to plant more wheat and work more than you actually need to make the extra production to be able to repay me. With that capital i gather, i invest it to other misfortuned people and yes, i became a modern slaveowner without whip and chains. This is not cooperation. Cooperation is when the community as a whole protect you and other misfortuned subjects from predatory behaviours of people like me.

Don't borrow money you can't repay. If you made an agreement of your own free will, then you cannot claim exploitation. If you think someone is exploiting you, leave the negotiating table and pretend he doesn't exist. To think that someone owes you the favorable terms that you need to do well despite your lack of leverage to earn them is just a false sense of self-entitlement.

De-evolution is loughable, you see, no one socialist country returned to caves or else. In contrast, USSR was a major contributor to world's science and technology. PRC's first priority was the industrialization.

Your reading comprehension is laughable. This was a rely to Nutrient saying that no markets are needed and everyone should do everything themselves with resources as cheap as dirt. As ridiculous communism and socialism are, neither have went this far.

In your narratives for Cuba, DPRK, Venezuela you forgot to mention the embargoes, containments, and wars against these little socialist states.

And why are they embargoed? Why are they not embargoing capitalist nations into the ground? Because they are weak and that is because socialism is weak.

Are you somekind of Imperialist's lawyer?WTF?

Did you see some legal terms in my writing?

No, I am a realist. I think these countries have the right to develop their own defenses and sell their own oil and it makes me angry truly, to see the US bully them. I want to see them give the US a bloody nose for sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. But I will never see it because they are far too weak to do anything to capitalist America.

Cuba has better better performance in education, health, life expectancy and birth mortality, even under the inhumane embargo.

Better than what?

What "socially at a terrible deficit" are you talking about...Look at the rich neighbours of Cuba (USA) how they treat their poor neighbouring nations(Bananias, embargoes), their own poor people, their own minorities, their own sick people.

I never said capitalism is nice; I said it works to make a country strong.

ROFLMAO

American dominance and bullying of weak socialist nations make you roll on the floor with laughter? That's cruel...

 

[windsclouds2030]

Im surprised I haven't seen it posted here yet but this hilarious and motivating at the same time!

If the PLA were taking foreign born Chinese like me I would sign up today! Russia and China still want MEN to fight, not woke, confused, easily triggered snowflakes!

Chinese army ads: discipline, patriotism, strength
Russian army ads: discipline, patriotism, strength
American army ads: TWO MOMS


Read on the comments there, lots of amusing ones.... I can't help of LMAO truly funny!!!

 

[windsclouds2030]

To be fair, the English media use the Chinese names inconsistently, so it's understandable that they would be confusing to non-Chinese speaking people.

As far as I can tell, there appears to be some conventions emerging. For Chinese in China, particularly the well-known people like politicians and celebrities, their names in Pinyin are used in their Chinese order. For example, Xi Jingping, Hu jintao, Jiang Zemin, Deng Xiaoping, Yao Ming. But for Chinese living in the west with English names, they would follow the western convention, such as Vera Wang, David Chang, Andrew Yang.

What about Chinese living in the west without an obvious western name? Well, it's all over the place. It could be Tao Wang or Wang Tao, Feng Zhang or Zhang Feng. At least these have better known family names. What about Ouyang Shasha? It'll be difficult for the non-Chinese speaking people to tell which is family name and which is given name.

The best way to identify the surname in the case of just one syllable first name is to capitalize the surname!

Not long ago I encountered Chinese name written "Hong Liu" in some English publication, just the Pinyin without its Chinese character, then upon my bad, I get confused his surname "HONG" or "LIU" since both could be legitimate surnames -- but I should have known that in English paper the Chinese author should have been written as First name - Surname order.

However if Chinese name like "Hong Liu" in other English news pieces and elsewhere can be randomly written as "Hong Liu" or "Liu Hong" then I will get confused about his correct surname (because both names, Hong and Liu, can be a legitimate surname). Problem will be solved if it's written as "Hong LIU" / "LIU Hong".

Well, for me, since I just write in internet, not the academic paper , I always use Surname - First name for Chinese name following its natural order in native language!

I deliberately don't follow the Western rule for writing Chinese name in all English language posts and whereas relevant /necessary -- as in the one-syllable first name -- I just capitalize the surname to avoid any ambiguity.

 

[Strangelove]

 

[NiuBiDaRen]

Chinese army ads: discipline, patriotism, strength
Russian army ads: discipline, patriotism, strength
American army ads: TWO MOMS


Read on the comments there, lots of amusing ones.... I can't help of LMAO truly funny!!!

They just wiped out white people from the recruitment poster.

Next thing you know they're gonna feature a shemale and a transvestite raising a Native American boy born with gigantism #diversity

 

[NiuBiDaRen]