6 ms·

How was he begging for relief?

berserk1010 3y ago
He rarely travelled abroad in the last 4 years. He made a special trip to the home turf of US. The country that just choked their AI ambition He was trying to get American business to come back to China. Instead, not much deals happened. Furthermore, it was rumored that Goldman Sachs bought a seat at dinner with Xi, just to let him know that Goldman was selling huge amount of properties in China. He was also protesting US giving arms to Taiwan. Nothing happened.
- bsder 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - cced 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - radicaldreamer 3y ago
    These aren't the Epoch Times forums or weird WeChat groups, please source your claims and innuendo b/c this doesn't contribute anything worthwhile to the discourse.
    - bsder 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - cced 3y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        bsder 3y ago
        [flagged]
- hmm37 3y ago
  LOL. That's exactly what China states about the US, when the US sent multiple high up officials to China prior to Xi's trip to San Fran., in order to pave the way for Xi to come to the US because Biden was begging to meet with Xi. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
  - berserk1010 3y ago
    One country has a 22% youth unemployment rate, before stopped reporting. Another country has a 8% youth unemployment rate. One country has the primary investment sector being real estate, where their top 2 companies are bankrupt. Another country has the primary investment sector being stock market, where their tech top company is worth 30 of the other country's top tech companies. Easy to figure out which one was begging for money
    - hmm37 3y ago
      Again. It's a matter of perspective. If Biden didn't ask Xi to attend the APEC meeting, Xi probably wouldn't bother to attend. But based on your viewpoint, I guess no one needs to worry about China anymore because it's about to collapse. And whatever reserves China has is just all illusionary/fictitious, just like everything else in China. I also wouldn't necessarily take current market values of companies to be their actual worth. A product from e.g. Apple and e.g. Xiaomi are 95% similar and more than likely sell roughly the same amount of e.g. phones. Apple's value is in its brand, not necessarily that the goods are vastly technologically superior, etc., nor its capabilities as a company to produce goods.
refurb 3y ago
Juxtapose the "warrior wolf diplomacy" of not even a year ago with the hat-in-hand meeting with Biden in San Francisco. Xi bet he could stare down the US and win. He lost that bet.
- mkii 3y ago
  In your world, what would a Xi victory have looked like?
  - refurb 3y ago
    I think the intention was clear? To have the US back down. China wants to be the dominant power in Asia. It despises the US alliance (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia) that projects force along the entire Pacific Rim. However, much of China's growth is dependent on trade with the US and its allies. So it's in a bit of a pickle. Xi thought China could win the political battle without losing the economic one. He assumed the alliance would split apart, and the US would be forced to back down. At that point China would be free to project it's power across most of Asia without interference from the West. Whether that's taking back Taiwan, or at least the entirety of the nine-dash line islands. The US or any other foreign vessel couldn't transit the South China sea without the OK from China. He tried to pick off the members of the alliance one by one (the trade battle with Australia is a great example), but failed. Eventually the US and other nations said "enough is enough" and instituted sanctions on China. In addition private companies decided the political uncertainty was too high a risk. Combine that with the demographic bomb the country is facing, the debt-bomb from Chinese real estate and Xi realized he lost his gamble. The Chinese economy couldn't survive long enough under sanctions for China to win the political battle. But to be honest, he burned too many bridges. The Chinese economy is struggling. The embargo on technology is going to hurt China way more than it hurts the West. He came to San Francisco in hopes of repairing enough of the relationship as to not entirely sink the Chinese economy.
    - fancl20 3y ago
      It's not that clear and much more complex. If you follows the whole history of China's foreign policy, it's surprisingly consistent and the focus is never "competing with someone". To the topic of ‘Wolf Warriors’, the policy dropped as early as May 2021 so it's highly possible that the change itself is not economic related (https://thediplomat.com/2022/01/is-china-putting-wolf-warriors-on-a-leash/ https://thediplomat.com/2022/01/is-china-putting-wolf-warrio...). The targeted audience (of the foreign policy) may not be the West, but global south. There is a paper (I'm too lazy to find the link) claim that the ‘Wolf Warriors’ rhetoric used by China's diplomats in non-west country doesn't change much. If you are intrested in the changes under Xi, Kevin Rudd has a series of deep analysis: https://viet-studies.net/kinhte/WorldAccordingtoXi_FA.pdf https://viet-studies.net/kinhte/WorldAccordingtoXi_FA.pdf. Generally China's decision making process doesn't care too much about winning or competing or any particular goal especially in short term. They are based on long-term analisys of "what will happen inevitably" and back track from that conclusion. Many of these decisions make no sense from West's perspective under a cost-benefit analysis.

He rarely travelled abroad in the last 4 years. He made a special trip to the home turf of US. The country that just choked their AI ambition He was trying to get American business to come back to China. Instead, not much deals happened. Furthermore, it was rumored that Goldman Sachs bought a seat at dinner with Xi, just to let him know that Goldman was selling huge amount of properties in China. He was also protesting US giving arms to Taiwan. Nothing happened.

bsder 3y ago
[flagged]
- cced 3y ago
  [flagged]
- radicaldreamer 3y ago
  These aren't the Epoch Times forums or weird WeChat groups, please source your claims and innuendo b/c this doesn't contribute anything worthwhile to the discourse.
  - bsder 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - cced 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - bsder 3y ago
        [flagged]
hmm37 3y ago
LOL. That's exactly what China states about the US, when the US sent multiple high up officials to China prior to Xi's trip to San Fran., in order to pave the way for Xi to come to the US because Biden was begging to meet with Xi. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
- berserk1010 3y ago
  One country has a 22% youth unemployment rate, before stopped reporting. Another country has a 8% youth unemployment rate. One country has the primary investment sector being real estate, where their top 2 companies are bankrupt. Another country has the primary investment sector being stock market, where their tech top company is worth 30 of the other country's top tech companies. Easy to figure out which one was begging for money
  - hmm37 3y ago
    Again. It's a matter of perspective. If Biden didn't ask Xi to attend the APEC meeting, Xi probably wouldn't bother to attend. But based on your viewpoint, I guess no one needs to worry about China anymore because it's about to collapse. And whatever reserves China has is just all illusionary/fictitious, just like everything else in China. I also wouldn't necessarily take current market values of companies to be their actual worth. A product from e.g. Apple and e.g. Xiaomi are 95% similar and more than likely sell roughly the same amount of e.g. phones. Apple's value is in its brand, not necessarily that the goods are vastly technologically superior, etc., nor its capabilities as a company to produce goods.

refurb 3y ago

Juxtapose the "warrior wolf diplomacy" of not even a year ago with the hat-in-hand meeting with Biden in San Francisco. Xi bet he could stare down the US and win. He lost that bet.

mkii 3y ago
In your world, what would a Xi victory have looked like?
- refurb 3y ago
  I think the intention was clear? To have the US back down. China wants to be the dominant power in Asia. It despises the US alliance (Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia) that projects force along the entire Pacific Rim. However, much of China's growth is dependent on trade with the US and its allies. So it's in a bit of a pickle. Xi thought China could win the political battle without losing the economic one. He assumed the alliance would split apart, and the US would be forced to back down. At that point China would be free to project it's power across most of Asia without interference from the West. Whether that's taking back Taiwan, or at least the entirety of the nine-dash line islands. The US or any other foreign vessel couldn't transit the South China sea without the OK from China. He tried to pick off the members of the alliance one by one (the trade battle with Australia is a great example), but failed. Eventually the US and other nations said "enough is enough" and instituted sanctions on China. In addition private companies decided the political uncertainty was too high a risk. Combine that with the demographic bomb the country is facing, the debt-bomb from Chinese real estate and Xi realized he lost his gamble. The Chinese economy couldn't survive long enough under sanctions for China to win the political battle. But to be honest, he burned too many bridges. The Chinese economy is struggling. The embargo on technology is going to hurt China way more than it hurts the West. He came to San Francisco in hopes of repairing enough of the relationship as to not entirely sink the Chinese economy.
  - fancl20 3y ago
    It's not that clear and much more complex. If you follows the whole history of China's foreign policy, it's surprisingly consistent and the focus is never "competing with someone". To the topic of ‘Wolf Warriors’, the policy dropped as early as May 2021 so it's highly possible that the change itself is not economic related (https://thediplomat.com/2022/01/is-china-putting-wolf-warriors-on-a-leash/ https://thediplomat.com/2022/01/is-china-putting-wolf-warrio...). The targeted audience (of the foreign policy) may not be the West, but global south. There is a paper (I'm too lazy to find the link) claim that the ‘Wolf Warriors’ rhetoric used by China's diplomats in non-west country doesn't change much. If you are intrested in the changes under Xi, Kevin Rudd has a series of deep analysis: https://viet-studies.net/kinhte/WorldAccordingtoXi_FA.pdf https://viet-studies.net/kinhte/WorldAccordingtoXi_FA.pdf. Generally China's decision making process doesn't care too much about winning or competing or any particular goal especially in short term. They are based on long-term analisys of "what will happen inevitably" and back track from that conclusion. Many of these decisions make no sense from West's perspective under a cost-benefit analysis.