Chinese Economics Thread

weig2000

Captain
A lot of members here have access to both English media and Chinese media, but I suppose majority of them read more English media than the Chinese ones - my guess and common sense, with no rigorous statistics to back it up.

The impression of Australia among Chinese had been interesting, remote and slightly more positive of all Western countries. Mainland Chinese probably viewed it as a relatively friendly place for travel, study, invest and, indeed, even immigrate.

These have all changed gradually starting a few years ago, when Australia had pushed itself at the forefront of Sino-US conflict, which has been the defining and overriding themes globally and among Chinese community in the last few years. Australian banned Huawei from its National Broadband Network project back in 2012, which started to attract my attention about Australia from a geopolitical standpoint. I had followed Professor
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on his China focus and the ensuing debates in Australia on the subject on and off over the years. Professor White was prescient, I have to say, to see the quandary that Australia would be put in with the rise of China and its impact on Australia. Australia took the first shot across the bow when it banned Huawei from the 5G participation, the first in the world. Since then, it has taken the lead in both rhetoric and actions against China: from the so-called Chinese influence operations, South China Sea, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and the most indignant of all: calling for an independent inquiry of the origin and mishandling of Covid-19, a clearly politically-motivated call bordering on war crime investigation. The list is too long to list here.

Now, Australia considers itself a western nation even though it is in the Asia-Pacific region, giving its ethnic composition and history. An Anglo-Saxon outpost of sort. It is understandable that it will align with western countries in certain matters, particularly the US due to its security relationship. But what has really enraged China and Chinese people in general is why Australian felt that it had to take the lead in the western crusade against China, positioning itself as the attack dog of the US. China had no quarrel with Australia, unlike, say, Japan which has territorial and historical disputes with China (I'm leaving out the US for obvious reasons). China is no security threat to Australia and doesn't consider Australia a security threat to China or geopolitically important enough to even bother to invest in the so-called political influence operations or large-scale spying operations. Worst of all, China has been Australia's single largest customer, with close to 30% of its export market and has been responsible for Australia's uninterrupted growth over the last quarter century. And what does China get for all these?!

When Global Times called Australia a "paper cat," what it really tried to say is that Australia is feigning like a heavy-weight boxer with all its anti-China blusters. Many Australians were probably offended by GT's characterization that Australia was like "a piece of gum sticking to China's shoes," in other words, a nuisance with its constant harassment against China. But a lot of Chinese were actually humored and humiliated by Australia's accusations that China somehow even bothered to put its resources and reputation at stake to engage in some serious influence or spying operations in Australia. All these nuisance and harassment have been adding up nonstop, and the call for inquiry of Covid became the backstab and the last straw that broke the camel's back. Enough is enough.

That has been my view of Australia's behaviors against China in the last few years. It's been an evolution that gets where we're today. Would be interested in hearing what you and others have to say on the subject. I personally think that deep-seated racialism and strong insecurity about its future in a non-white region increasingly not dominated by the US have caused all the seemingly very irrational behaviors.

This report from New York Times on the latest China-Australia disputes is a good read as a follow-up to the above post.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Orthan

Senior Member
Firstly, many countries have initially resisted from allowing the PCAOB to go to their countries to inspect due to national sovereignty concerns or privacy concerns. It is not just China.

Secondly, allowing a foreign regulator to come to your country to enforce foreign law on your soil against your people is a violation of sovereignty. China isn't one of those countries that easily give up its sovereignty.

Thirdly, audit work paper can contain state secret as these listed companies would have transactions with state companies.

The fact that some countries have initially resisting the PCAOB and that these chinese companies may have transactions with the state is no justification for china to not comply with these rules. And allowing a company to list in another country´s exchange and not playing by the rules of the house, isnt a violation of sovereignty?

Lastly, the US has implemented law such as FATCA (The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) requiring foreign financial institutions to report any customers that have connection to the U.S through birth or prior residency in the U.S to the US treasury. On the other hand, the US doesn't allow reciprocity. Legitimacy or fair is never the primary consideration of the US.

This doesnt affect china much because of the rigid capital controls, and AFAIK foreign banking in china is very low.

Does the US allow foreign auditors to come in and audit american companies listed abroad?

No ideia. But i dont believe that many US companies are listed abroad. The US is, after all, the financial capital of the world. Why would they want to go someplace else?
 

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
When level of poverty is increasing all over the world due to covid In China it is the opposite. Kudo to the great effort that is undertaken over decades to reduce poverty



It’s amazing how a home and transportation can change peoples lives so much.

They know 1. They will never be homeless again. 2. They can find a job if they’re willing to do the work.
 

KYli

Brigadier
The fact that some countries have initially resisting the PCAOB and that these chinese companies may have transactions with the state is no justification for china to not comply with these rules. And allowing a company to list in another country´s exchange and not playing by the rules of the house, isnt a violation of sovereignty?

China doesn't need to comply with American laws. China is a sovereign nation and it isn't a vassal state of the US. Don't try to impose imperialist rules on China. You don't even understand the meaning of sovereignty. These rules and laws are American rules and laws. America doesn't have jurisdiction in China.

On the other hand, America has every rights to not allow Chinese companies to list on American exchanges. In addition, America has every rights to delist Chinese companies that don't comply with its rules and regulations.

It is absurd that you try to claim China not playing by the rule. It is Americans that don't play by the rules. It is Americans that want to impose its rules and laws inside other countries. China never agrees to any of that. It is not to say that China couldn't come to some kind of compromise with the US but China doesn't have any obligation to do so.


This doesnt affect china much because of the rigid capital controls, and AFAIK foreign banking in china is very low.
Firstly, you are avoiding the issue that the US isn't playing fair. Secondly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Those wealthy and some corrupted Chinese have a ton of money and properties in the West. If the rule is reciprocal, then the American banks in the US and all financial management companies need to report assets of overseas Chinese to China.

No ideia. But i dont believe that many US companies are listed abroad. The US is, after all, the financial capital of the world. Why would they want to go someplace else?

It is not about if there were many US companies that are listed abroad. It is about the US wouldn't allow other countries regulators to come over to the US and to enforce law on the US soil and on the US companies.
 
Last edited:
Top