4 ms·

Subtitled, It is unambitious in scope So, not so big. It rubber stamps the status quo without concern for humanitarian or environmental issues. It marks a "win

Subtitled, It is unambitious in scope So, not so big. It rubber stamps the status quo without concern for humanitarian or environmental issues. It marks a "win" for business owners, not workers.

eunos 6y ago
> without concern for humanitarian or environmental issues Probably following Deng Xiaoping advice "Let Some People Get Rich First"
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  Deng shepherded economic reforms critical to China's success after it was left in dire straits by Mao. What Xi is doing now, such as halting major IPOs because of perceived criticism from successful CEOs, is more akin to Mao's sensitive nature than Deng's economic leadership.
  - eunos 6y ago
    A lot of speculation over Ant IPO but I doubt that it is personal rather than a systemic risk posed by Ant group. Besides not long after Chinese government announced anti trust initiative against tech companies. Not only Ant group is affected.
  - justicezyx 6y ago
    > What Xi is doing now, such as halting major IPOs because of perceived criticism from successful CEOs Let's be clear that the consensus now is that the regulatory changes were anticipated to come, and the power broker war manifested in halting ANT IPO. Of course, Xi is very likely to be responsible for the stop of ANT IPO (no one really can have a substantial evidence, because of the Chinese government's way of operation). But the worrying part is not that Xi has the power, he always has and will continue to have. One should be surprised if Xi somehow lost that power. The worrying part is that a unprecedented financial monster feed on the huge data harvested from Chinese citizens privacy (not that Xi really cares about privacy) and practicing a risky lending scheme that is larger than any equivalent US counterpart, were let to rush into IPO in less than 30 days. And can only be stopped by a dictator in a totalitarian country Everyone should be worried about the power wielded by private cooperation nowadays, they are able to challenge a totalitarian government. Image what they can do in a democratic country...
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > Everyone should be worried about the power wielded by private cooperation nowadays, they are able to challenge a totalitarian government. Image what they can do in a democratic country... Historically, major merchants won battles with the Chinese imperial government. Being "able to challenge" the communist party and lose is a step down.
      - justicezyx 6y ago
        > major merchants won battles with the Chinese imperial government Enlighten me, please.
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Trade in opium was illegal, and the merchants operated by bribing imperial inspectors. The government's desire to stop the trade in opium accomplished absolutely nothing. But if you want a more literal example of winning battles with the emperor, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga .
        justicezyx 6y ago
        Wow, this is an alternative version of the history I was taught during my high school, as well as Wiki. Lin Zexu [1] carried out destruction of opium stock at Humen [2]. It was mostly successful in destroying the flow of opium from one its major import source. And disturbed the traders. Eventually results into the 1840's Opium War which requires Britain intervene [3]. But fundamentally, the relation between opium trading and what we are discussing here is nonsensical. Opium trading is illegal, and hurting the people. It was invented to compensate the trade deficit of Britain [4]. It reflects little of the people's own judgement. Heck, one can reasonably state that Chinese people in 1840s are totally incapable of independent thinking, because of the long tradition of Chinese rulers' policy of "dumb down the peasants". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_opium_at_Humen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_opium_at_Humen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humen [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War#Opium_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War#Opium_trade
  - disown 6y ago
    > Deng shepherded economic reforms critical to China's success after it was left in dire straits by Mao. A single person isn't responsible for anything in a major country. Especially a country the size of china. Whenever you are told it is, you are being fed propaganda. Whether it's Xi, Putin, Trump, etc. > What Xi is doing now, such as halting major IPOs because of perceived criticism from successful CEOs See what I mean. Do you think Xi called any journalist at the WSJ or bloomberg and told them he's going to halt Ant's IPO because of what Jack Ma said? Or do you think it is nonsense "journalists" made up because they needed a story to sell? Sort of like how everyday after the bell, the news gives us a reason for why the dow went up or down a few points? Do you just believe nonsense you read in the newspaper? > is more akin to Mao's sensitive nature than Deng's economic leadership. Oh god, it's amazing how people just parrot propaganda. Yeah, deng's "amazing economic leadership". But there is no deng's economic leadership without mao meeting nixon. And mao doesn't meet nixon without hundred or thousands of sino-american meetings behind the scenes. Do you think Mao just decided on a whim one day to meet nixon? Do you think Deng was the one that set out china's econonic goals? Or do you think in a nation of 1.4 billion people, they had help? Do you think that Ant's IPO was halted because of Xi and what Jack Ma said or do you think it was because china's regulatory agencies and intelligence apparatus had issues with it? Just think about it. Everyone has the capacity to think and reason. Lucky for the news industry, most people don't bother otherwise, they'd be out of business.
    - eunos 6y ago
      > And mao doesn't meet nixon without hundred or thousands of sino-american meetings behind the scenes. Do you think Mao just decided on a whim one day to meet nixon? Interestingly it started with a table tennis player https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping-pong_diplomacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping-pong_diplomacy
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > But there is no deng's economic leadership without mao meeting nixon. And mao doesn't meet nixon without hundred or thousands of sino-american meetings behind the scenes. This makes no sense. If China were completely isolated, it would still have corrected to the point where it could operate without everybody just dying in the streets. And that correction would have been a suite of economic reforms, since the economic policies were what was making everybody die in the streets. An interaction with the United States might have hastened this, or included some minor US-specific side effects, but over the long term it's meaningless.
xster 6y ago
How did you derive that conclusion? https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/RCEP-to-remove-tariffs-on-86-of-Japan-s-exports-to-China https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/RCE... Japan to China tariff reduction went from 8% to 86%. Doesn't seem like a status quo to me.
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  Status quo with regard to labor rights and the environment. As the subtitle says, it is unambitious in scope.
  - xster 6y ago
    Ah right. Though I suppose it's ok for a trade agreement to not also be a supra-national government. Don't know if that's too far from the norm.
    - unityByFreedom 6y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree. Baby steps.

Subtitled, It is unambitious in scope So, not so big. It rubber stamps the status quo without concern for humanitarian or environmental issues. It marks a "win" for business owners, not workers.

eunos 6y ago

> without concern for humanitarian or environmental issues Probably following Deng Xiaoping advice "Let Some People Get Rich First"

unityByFreedom 6y ago
Deng shepherded economic reforms critical to China's success after it was left in dire straits by Mao. What Xi is doing now, such as halting major IPOs because of perceived criticism from successful CEOs, is more akin to Mao's sensitive nature than Deng's economic leadership.
- eunos 6y ago
  A lot of speculation over Ant IPO but I doubt that it is personal rather than a systemic risk posed by Ant group. Besides not long after Chinese government announced anti trust initiative against tech companies. Not only Ant group is affected.
- justicezyx 6y ago
  > What Xi is doing now, such as halting major IPOs because of perceived criticism from successful CEOs Let's be clear that the consensus now is that the regulatory changes were anticipated to come, and the power broker war manifested in halting ANT IPO. Of course, Xi is very likely to be responsible for the stop of ANT IPO (no one really can have a substantial evidence, because of the Chinese government's way of operation). But the worrying part is not that Xi has the power, he always has and will continue to have. One should be surprised if Xi somehow lost that power. The worrying part is that a unprecedented financial monster feed on the huge data harvested from Chinese citizens privacy (not that Xi really cares about privacy) and practicing a risky lending scheme that is larger than any equivalent US counterpart, were let to rush into IPO in less than 30 days. And can only be stopped by a dictator in a totalitarian country Everyone should be worried about the power wielded by private cooperation nowadays, they are able to challenge a totalitarian government. Image what they can do in a democratic country...
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > Everyone should be worried about the power wielded by private cooperation nowadays, they are able to challenge a totalitarian government. Image what they can do in a democratic country... Historically, major merchants won battles with the Chinese imperial government. Being "able to challenge" the communist party and lose is a step down.
    - justicezyx 6y ago
      > major merchants won battles with the Chinese imperial government Enlighten me, please.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Trade in opium was illegal, and the merchants operated by bribing imperial inspectors. The government's desire to stop the trade in opium accomplished absolutely nothing. But if you want a more literal example of winning battles with the emperor, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga .
        justicezyx 6y ago
        Wow, this is an alternative version of the history I was taught during my high school, as well as Wiki. Lin Zexu [1] carried out destruction of opium stock at Humen [2]. It was mostly successful in destroying the flow of opium from one its major import source. And disturbed the traders. Eventually results into the 1840's Opium War which requires Britain intervene [3]. But fundamentally, the relation between opium trading and what we are discussing here is nonsensical. Opium trading is illegal, and hurting the people. It was invented to compensate the trade deficit of Britain [4]. It reflects little of the people's own judgement. Heck, one can reasonably state that Chinese people in 1840s are totally incapable of independent thinking, because of the long tradition of Chinese rulers' policy of "dumb down the peasants". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_opium_at_Humen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_opium_at_Humen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humen [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War#Opium_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War#Opium_trade
- disown 6y ago
  > Deng shepherded economic reforms critical to China's success after it was left in dire straits by Mao. A single person isn't responsible for anything in a major country. Especially a country the size of china. Whenever you are told it is, you are being fed propaganda. Whether it's Xi, Putin, Trump, etc. > What Xi is doing now, such as halting major IPOs because of perceived criticism from successful CEOs See what I mean. Do you think Xi called any journalist at the WSJ or bloomberg and told them he's going to halt Ant's IPO because of what Jack Ma said? Or do you think it is nonsense "journalists" made up because they needed a story to sell? Sort of like how everyday after the bell, the news gives us a reason for why the dow went up or down a few points? Do you just believe nonsense you read in the newspaper? > is more akin to Mao's sensitive nature than Deng's economic leadership. Oh god, it's amazing how people just parrot propaganda. Yeah, deng's "amazing economic leadership". But there is no deng's economic leadership without mao meeting nixon. And mao doesn't meet nixon without hundred or thousands of sino-american meetings behind the scenes. Do you think Mao just decided on a whim one day to meet nixon? Do you think Deng was the one that set out china's econonic goals? Or do you think in a nation of 1.4 billion people, they had help? Do you think that Ant's IPO was halted because of Xi and what Jack Ma said or do you think it was because china's regulatory agencies and intelligence apparatus had issues with it? Just think about it. Everyone has the capacity to think and reason. Lucky for the news industry, most people don't bother otherwise, they'd be out of business.
  - eunos 6y ago
    > And mao doesn't meet nixon without hundred or thousands of sino-american meetings behind the scenes. Do you think Mao just decided on a whim one day to meet nixon? Interestingly it started with a table tennis player https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping-pong_diplomacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping-pong_diplomacy
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > But there is no deng's economic leadership without mao meeting nixon. And mao doesn't meet nixon without hundred or thousands of sino-american meetings behind the scenes. This makes no sense. If China were completely isolated, it would still have corrected to the point where it could operate without everybody just dying in the streets. And that correction would have been a suite of economic reforms, since the economic policies were what was making everybody die in the streets. An interaction with the United States might have hastened this, or included some minor US-specific side effects, but over the long term it's meaningless.

xster 6y ago

How did you derive that conclusion? https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/RCEP-to-remove-tariffs-on-86-of-Japan-s-exports-to-China https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/RCE... Japan to China tariff reduction went from 8% to 86%. Doesn't seem like a status quo to me.

unityByFreedom 6y ago
Status quo with regard to labor rights and the environment. As the subtitle says, it is unambitious in scope.
- xster 6y ago
  Ah right. Though I suppose it's ok for a trade agreement to not also be a supra-national government. Don't know if that's too far from the norm.
  - unityByFreedom 6y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree. Baby steps.