Miscellaneous News

S

supersnoop

Colonel
Registered Member
Temstar said:
I think the lesson is these kind of big time diplomatic discussion over territory changing hands MUST be backed with credible threat of violence, else no one is going to give up anything no matter how much of a smooth talker your negotiator is.

According to Shilao, during the 1997 Hong Kong handover the Hong Kong Garrison was subject to intense EW from
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Even though this was all agreed upon many years before and everything went according to the agreed protocol the Brits are still going to be an asshole about it. So you can imagine if you don't have credible threat of violence and think you can just nicely talk them into giving up Falkland Island you have another thing coming.
Click to expand...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The exact quote:
in no more than one or two years time the Chinese government would formally announce their decision to recover Hong Kong.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily violence. I think the bigger implication was whether the British were willing to risk losing everything (businesses, etc.) by maintaining a sovereignty claim.

ACuriousPLAFan said:
TBH, China didn't had Thatcher at gunpoint.

If the UK refuses to return Hong Kong back to China, then the PLA will just march their troops and tanks across the Shenzhen River and right onto the streets of Kowloon. And what can the UK even do about it?

Sure, the UK did drew up plans to nuke China in case Beijing orders the PLA to crash into Hong Kong in the 1950s and the early-1960s.

But when Thatcher visited Beijing in September 1982 - China was estimated to have 200+ nuclear warheads, and had just introduced the DF-5 ICBM, which puts all of the British Isles within range of a Chinese nuclear attack. Besides, Hong Kong is much, much farther away from the UK than the Falklands/Malvinas are - There is zero hope for the UK to relieve their garrisons in Hong Kong if Beijing decides to reunite Hong Kong forcefully, then and there.

Plus, the early-1980s was the honeymoon period between China and the US-led West, and the US-led West needs China's support to stand against the USSR. It was definitely not in London's interests to force China back into the WTO camp.

To sum it up - It was Thatcher (and the UK in general) that didn't have a choice in the first place.
Click to expand...

As you can see in the link above (and there are others like it for those that have a distaste for CNN), UK never had any illusions about keeping HK and actually the Falklands war did have an indirect impact on he negotiations.

What's more interesting is that Zhou Enlai always had a lot of foresight into how he could use HK to the PRC's advantage. First, they never invaded HK in the immediate aftermath of the war. Then when the British had considered giving HK more political freedom in the 50's, Premier Zhou could foresee how this could be used as a lever to be used against the PRC and strongly advised against it. When the leftist riots gripped the city in the 60's, he actually moved against them. He also guaranteed water and food delivery to HK even when PRC was poor. This guy had a 50 year plan, amazing...

CNN said this on the point of democracy:
“very unfriendly act,” premier Zhou Enlai reportedly told British officials in 1958. Another Chinese official in 1960 threatened potential invasion if the UK attempted to introduce greater democracy to the colony.

The full background is actually this (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
):
A self-governing Hong Kong would, in their opinion, open its doors to Chiang Kai-shek and the Americans,' according to British Embassy documents concerning the meeting.
'China wished the present colonial status of Hong Kong to continue with no change whatsoever . . . the enormous American Consulate-General in Hong Kong was merely a base for subversive activities in China and this would become worse if Hong Kong was self-governing.
Click to expand...
 
T

tokenanalyst

Brigadier
Registered Member
jblas13 said:
Yes and 5.5% is below 6%. China is growing below the pre-COVID trend
China's exports as a % of GDP is one of the lowest in the G20 and COVID caused an export boom in China. The trend in the US is that GDP is at levels implied by 2018-2019 growth. The trend in China is that GDP is at levels 7% below those implied by 2018-2019 growth.


High rates have been with the US economy for 1.5 years now and even with that, even residential single-family housing is growing as a sector. The US economy, for whatever reason (corporate/houshold borrowings at fixed rates (mortgages and corporate bonds) in 2020, increase in shares of , excess savings, a booming jobs market, etc) seems completely insensitive to interest rates and inflation is solved. The CPI uses as its housing/rents estimate, the average of all rents paid (instead of new rents) so it includes leases signed months ago. Now, new rents are declining and rents are 35% of the CPI. Inflation is over as a problem. Transitory supply issues resolved and rents went down because of rate hikes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689685117353041941
Click to expand...
Well, keep an eye man, historically speaking inflationary periods and economic bubbles only really come down in economic recessions, that is why the FED is both the destroyer and savior of last resort, like a god. the worst would be the impossible trifecta HI, LG and HR
 
K

KYli

Brigadier
jblas13 said:
It's the best baseline there is of a unknowable other potential future.

GDP growth and GDPPC are negatively correlated but said correlation is neither strong or universal (see US outperformance of the EU and Japan with substantially higher per capita GDP). RE and COVID shocks were timed at the same time (perhaps intentionally to give political cover for the RE adjustments) but regardless, that you have *substantially* slower growth after COVID became a thing isn't deniable but the US did not have substantially lower growth (it had the same growth rate). Thus the MSM party about the growth rates
Click to expand...
We are talking about when the high growth rate for developing countries that slow down when it reached high income status. Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore all have the similar growth curve. That is absurd for you to compare developed nations growth rate. For developed nations, their growth rate varies due to their economic performance.

All fast developing nations that were able to become a developed countries follow the similar path. All such high growth countries at the beginning have double digits growth rate, then high single digit growth rate, and then mid-digit growth rate before finally obtained the developed status.

No countries can grow double digits forever and no countries can grow high single digit forever. A fair and objective comparison should be 5% to 5.5% projection growth rate verus the actual growth rate between 2021 to 2025.

As for the US, 14 trillion helicopter money to spur growth has already caused a high inflation. You think there wouldn't be a price to pay for such reckless way of spending tomorrow money.
 
T

tokenanalyst

Brigadier
Registered Member
The FED doesn't care if the US economy crash or not as long inflation crash too, in fact they may doing that right now. THEN they will cut rates to zero, do lavish economic stimulus, call again helicopter money and just plain money printing QE, QD, QY or whatever two letters they want call it, have their stupid dinners, drink their martinis, appear in the cover of time magazine as saviors and so on.
If that fails then is HI, LG and HR.
 
ZeEa5KPul

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
jblas13 said:
It's the best baseline there is of a unknowable other potential future.

GDP growth and GDPPC are negatively correlated but said correlation is neither strong or universal (see US outperformance of the EU and Japan with substantially higher per capita GDP). RE and COVID shocks were timed at the same time (perhaps intentionally to give political cover for the RE adjustments) but regardless, that you have *substantially* slower growth after COVID became a thing isn't deniable but the US did not have substantially lower growth (it had the same growth rate). Thus the MSM party about the growth rates
Click to expand...
China's economy will enter recession when you stop making alts, sleepystudent.
 
FriedButter

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Ukraine could give up territory to Russia – NATO official (Stolenberg)​

Kiev could end up relinquishing some of its former territory in exchange for NATO membership, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s chief of staff, Stian Jenssen said at a debate on Tuesday. In his own statements on the issue, Stoltenberg has insisted that Kiev will set its own terms for “victory.”

“I think that a solution could be for Ukraine to give up territory, and get NATO membership in return,” Jenssen said at the debate, according to Norway’s VG newspaper. This discussion is already underway within NATO, he said, suggesting that it could be a “possible solution” to the conflict.

No NATO leaders have publicly endorsed the idea of Kiev giving up its claims to the territories of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, or Zaporozhye, which were incorporated into the Russian Federation following referendums last September. Likewise, while Western officials have cast doubt on Ukraine’s ability to seize Crimea – an historical Russian territory which rejoined the Russian Federation in 2014, none have urged Kiev to abandon its claim to the peninsula.

Such an idea has apparently been floated behind the scenes, however. Swiss outlet Neue Zürcher Zeitung claimed in February, citing sources, that CIA Director William Burns had offered Russia a “land for peace” deal in which Moscow would keep “20% of Ukrainian territory.” The White House, the CIA, and the Kremlin all denied that such a proposal had been made.

Whether such a deal would be accepted by Kiev or Moscow remains doubtful. Russian President Vladimir Putin stated last year that securing the military neutrality of Ukraine was a key factor behind his decision to send troops into the country, and that having a NATO-aligned Ukraine on Russia’s borders would present an unacceptable security risk.

Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council chief Aleksey Danilov stated on Tuesday that Kiev will never negotiate with Putin’s government, that none of Ukraine’s Western backers are pushing for peace, and that “Russia must be destroyed like a modern-day Carthage."

Achieving this goal is proving extremely difficult for Kiev. Two months into its long-anticipated counteroffensive against Russian forces, the Ukrainian military has lost more than 43,000 men and nearly 5,000 pieces of heavy equipment, according to the latest figures from the Russian Defense Ministry.
Click to expand...
“I think that a solution could be for Ukraine to give up territory, and get NATO membership in return,” Jenssen said at the debate, according to Norway’s VG newspaper. This discussion is already underway within NATO, he said, suggesting that it could be a “possible solution” to the conflict.
Click to expand...

Sounds like desperation is slowly setting in. Always with the discussions of peace terms within NATO but never the discussions on negotiating with the Russians.
 
M

Minm

Junior Member
Registered Member
jblas13 said:
It's the best baseline there is of a unknowable other potential future.
Click to expand...
GDP growth in China is not unknowable. Most countries have less control over their economy, so GDP growth is discovered after it happened. In China, the government decides what GDP growth to achieve and then spends the required money and effort to achieve it. Many people here expected China to achieve 6% or more growth earlier this year, but this is as wrong as expecting 4% or less. The government will meet its targets. If growth is high, they deflate bubbles and introduce regulations, if growth is low, they provide stimulus. People should get used to that
 
J

jblas13

Banned Idiot
Registered Member
Minm said:
GDP growth in China is not unknowable.
Click to expand...
GDP growth in the absence of COVID is unknowable.
Minm said:
Most countries have less control over their economy, so GDP growth is discovered after it happened. In China, the government decides what GDP growth to achieve and then spends the required money and effort to achieve it. Many people here expected China to achieve 6% or more growth earlier this year, but this is as wrong as expecting 4% or less. The government will meet its targets. If growth is high, they deflate bubbles and introduce regulations, if growth is low, they provide stimulus. People should get used to that
Click to expand...
You just described how fiscal and monetary policy work in all countries. China still doesn’t have “control” of GDP in the sense that because the NPC said it, GDP will grow at [X]% because the economy is 1.4 billion different agents making their own decisions. See China missing it’s GDP target in 2022 because of COVID lockdowns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top