Sign in to follow this  
Mores

News Flash!!!

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Godless said:

I want our talks with NK to address human rights issues in that country.

With only rare exceptions, so-called human rights abuses in foreign countries, especially non-allies, are none of our business. It is an enforcement of what has been called "cultural imperialism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sixty years ago, Ezra Taft Benson warned of the foolishness and counterproductive nature of agricultural subsidies. His opinion was, shall we say, not well-received. Are you now agreeing with him?

As a general rule, I'm not opposed to agricultural subsidies. I object to using taxpayer money to offset lost export revenue as a result of tariffs. THAT seems counterproductive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Godless said:

I object to using taxpayer money to offset lost export revenue as a result of tariffs. THAT seems counterproductive. 

So you object to taxpayer-funded relief of the effects of protectionism, but you have no problem with taxpayer-funded relief of the effects of misguided efforts that dump millions of gallons of milk per week down the drain and that leave millions of tons of grain per year rotting on concrete pads? Or maybe there are really good, convincing reasons for the widespread use of farming subsidies as they have been used for the last hundred years that I just don't know about yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Vort said:

So you object to taxpayer-funded relief of the effects of protectionism, but you have no problem with taxpayer-funded relief of the effects of misguided efforts that dump millions of gallons of milk per week down the drain and that leave millions of tons of grain per year rotting on concrete pads? Or maybe there are really good, convincing reasons for the widespread use of farming subsidies as they have been used for the last hundred years that I just don't know about yet.

As I said, as a general rule (ie. "on principle"), I don't oppose agricultural subsidies. I should clarify that this is an area that I'm not well-versed in. I believe that the people who produce food, fuel, and other important agricultural commodities deserve taxpayer assistance as needed. The way I see it, it's a public investment in something that is vital to our existence (I feel the same way about education spending). I also believe that unnecessary waste is always something to be discouraged. Again, I'm not well-educated in the ways of agricultural assistance programs. If, as you say, we're primarily subsidizing wasteful practices, then I don't support that. 

Edited by Godless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one note about agricultural subsidies.    I come from a long line of farmers.    Most farmers do not want subsidies.   They want fair prices for their products.   A lot of people don't seem to understand this (I'm not referring to anyone on this forum).   

Other than tax breaks, I'm not in favor of agricultural subsides unless there is a widespread disaster, and even then it should work as a type of insurance. 

Also crops like tobacco shouldn't be insured by the government.    A lot of people think the tobacco subsides ended in 2004, but tobacco crops are still insured by the government.  

Sugar shouldn't be subsidized either.   

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scott said:

It sounds to me that you are supporting what I said.  Isn't the above what I have been saying?       

So, if it did come down to it, do you think China would cave and support the US if an all out trade war were threatened against China because of there support of North Korea?   I think they would cave for all the reasons you list above, though I don't know what the timeline would be.  

I'm not sure what you are diagreeing with here.

You're talking in frames that doesn't encompass the reality of the situation.  That is - you're framing the picture like "China would support the US and not support DPRK"... that's not how trade negotiations nor peace negotiations work when it comes to DPRK because that's not the frame of the picture.  It's like this - Magneto and Prof X are on the opposite sides of a chess match.  There's no such thing as "Magneto supporting Prof X to avoid losing the chess match" because that's not the framework of a chess match.

The frame of the Chinese-US trade negotiations is - China is on one side, US is on the other side.  China has DPRK as a chess piece on the game board (among many others).  The US also has their own chess pieces, the biggest of which is their wealthy consumer base.  What makes this different than chess is that the US has the potential not just to take DPRK off the game board but actually turn DPRK into a chess piece on the US game board because... Trump figured out a way to do that through Jong-un's penchant for first world niceties.  

So, with that framework in mind, China putting sanctions on the DPRK "or else we won't buy China" is not how your trade and peace goals are going to be achieved (that's why it has failed over and over since the Korean war).  Because China can (and has) put sanctions on the DPRK and can still go on the trade negs and whip your butt on trade AND still get Kim to fire his rockets.

4 hours ago, Scott said:

It's not Jim Jong-Un nor the North Korean military that they fear.   China fears North Korea because they fear a regime collapse.    

There is zero evidence of this.   Yes, nobody fears Jong-Un nor the DPRK military.  Any of the world's superpowers, including China, can wipe them out off the face of the earth without needing to launch any nukes.  China does not fear the Kims losing power either.  The need for a red scare is long gone with the collapse of Russia.  China has been surrounded by non-red states for decades now such that even with their reacquisition of HongKong, they have not felt the need to put HongKong under their communist system.  They have adjusted their foreign policy long ago to that fact.

4 hours ago, Scott said:



Also, I don't think China wants North Korea to have nukes (which I assume is your main point of disagreement).   If they did, they would supplied them already.   And unlike Israel (as you brought up), China is open about being a nuclear power.    It is likely that only the US and Russia have more nukes than China.   

You misunderstood me.  China doesn't need DPRK to have nukes.  They simply need the West to continue to believe DPRK is working towards nukes so they can be an effective piece on the chess board.  China actually doesn't care one way or the other if the DPRK have or don't have nukes as is evident by their position after DPRK withdrew from the Non-proliferation Treaty.

And I only brought up Israel as an analogy to something everybody knows they do/have but there is no official document that states they do/have. 

China, of course, have nukes.   Okay... there are only 9 nuclear states in the world.  5 of them - US, Russia, France, UK, and China are recognized nuclear powers in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Russia has the most nukes - over 6000 warheads, USA is next - only a few warheads lower than Russia.  France is next with 300 warheads, China is next with a few warheads less than France, and the UK having a few warheads less than China.  There are 3 states that have declared nuclear capability but not under the NPT - India and Pakistan with around 100 warheads each, and DPRK who is suspected to have at least 10.  And 1 state - Israel - that has not declared nuclear capability but hasn't denied it either but researchers of this kind of stuff has estimated it to have a couple hundred nukes.

 

4 hours ago, Scott said:


And yet again we agree.   We're getting off topic now, but the above is why the Iraq War was a lost cause before it began.

The US viewed the war as us fighting a country and had the intention of replacing it with a country with the same name, but a different form of government.

The problem is that a lot of people in that region don't want a country (or government) the same way as we think of one.    What they want is that only their clan, religion, sect, or whatever has control over those in their immediate sphere of influence.    

That's what the mainline narrative says.  But the 2016 campaign has shed a new light on this one.  Why did the Bush family support Clinton (and Obama) over Trump?  Why did McCain work with the Clinton campaign in getting the fake Steele dossier?  The answer is... they want the war.  Because, even with Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and his "apology tour", he still has been just as warmongering as Bush.  So, it changes how you look at Afghanistan or Iraq and even Syria.

Now, this is just my opinion with flimsy to non-existent evidence - and that's because it's the only thing that makes sense - why did Mitt Romney try to upend the 2016 election?  The only thing that makes sense is... he is involved in this as well.

 

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vort said:

This assumes China holds its citizens' wellbeing as a primary concern. I believe that presumption to be untrue. The Chinese citizenry is a resource to be exploited, and nothing else. Their wellbeing is important only insofar as it contributes to economic strength and international prestige.

This ugly Darwinian fact is not the worst of it, but that a majority of American politicians think exactly the same way about us.

Chinese CULTURE contradicts that assertion.  Of course, the Western perception of "citizen's well-being" is completely different from the East.  I'll give you just one example - the West believes you should sacrifice the Family for the Individual's happiness.  It is the opposite in the East.  And of course, especially in China, you can extend Family to the Clan and expand the Clan to all Chinese.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

There is zero evidence of this.

I disagree.   Chinese officials have said many times that they fear a regime collapse and instability.

Even if you say it's just a ploy, China has built many refugee camps near the China/North Korea border, especially around Changbai Shan.   They tried to keep it secret, so it can't be said that it was just a ploy to scare the west.

Do you really believe that it was all just a ploy?  

Quote

China doesn't need DPRK to have nukes.  They simply need the West to continue to believe DPRK is working towards nukes so they can be an effective piece on the chess board.  China actually doesn't care one way or the other if the DPRK have or don't have nukes as is evident by their position after DPRK withdrew from the Non-proliferation Treaty.

OK, I see.  I agree with the first half, but I still really doubt that China wants North Korea to have nukes or even that they are indifferent.   China may use it as a bargaining chip, but that's not the same as wanting them to have nukes or being indifferent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Chinese CULTURE contradicts that assertion.  Of course, the Western perception of "citizen's well-being" is completely different from the East.  I'll give you just one example - the West believes you should sacrifice the Family for the Individual's happiness.  It is the opposite in the East.  And of course, especially in China, you can extend Family to the Clan and expand the Clan to all Chinese.

Your broad generalization is untrue. The "one-child policy" and its often-brutal enforcement seems a pretty good example of the attitude of the Chinese government and functionaries toward the citizenry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Your broad generalization is untrue. The "one-child policy" and its often-brutal enforcement seems a pretty good example of the attitude of the Chinese government and functionaries toward the citizenry.

The "one-child policy" is exactly Chinese Culture on display.  Mulan even depicts this same culture even as they romanticized Mulan as the "poor unfortunate soul" who had to defy Chinese culture.  Chinese culture exacts sacrifices from their families/clans to serve the survivability of China. 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vort said:

Your broad generalization is untrue. The "one-child policy" and its often-brutal enforcement seems a pretty good example of the attitude of the Chinese government and functionaries toward the citizenry.

I'm not saying that I agree with China, but from their viewpoint the one-child policy is meant to curtail famine (which as you know was actually caused by the revolution).  

The one child policy officially ended in 2015, but it is estimated that it prevented close to half a billion births during that time period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Scott said:

I disagree.   Chinese officials have said many times that they fear a regime collapse and instability.

Even if you say it's just a ploy, China has built many refugee camps near the China/North Korea border, especially around Changbai Shan.   They tried to keep it secret, so it can't be said that it was just a ploy to scare the west.

Do you really believe that it was all just a ploy?    

OK, I see.  I agree with the first half, but I still really doubt that China wants North Korea to have nukes or even that they are indifferent.   China may use it as a bargaining chip, but that's not the same as wanting them to have nukes or being indifferent.  

Think about it.

The source of the "refugee camps" story is a leak from a tech firm in China.  "Leaks" are something that happens in the democratic US.  "Leaks" don't happen in China.  Imagine what China can do to a tech firm who leaks something that they don't want to leak.  So, when a news story source is a "leak" with impunity, you can be assured, China intended it to leak. 

So, why the leak of refugee camps?  Because... Euro-centrists and Trump's resistance are pro refugee camps.  By the way - this story was from 2017 - when the "my rocket is bigger than your rocket" thing was the thing of the day and China was gaining EU pieces on its trading chess board preparing for the coming negotiations.

Now, another thing to think about... there are hundreds of thousands of North Korean refugees that have fled North Korea through China.  China hasn't built refugee camps for them nor given them asylum.  Rather, they have been sending everyone they caught to North Korea... not South Korea like Mongolia does.  So, why all of a sudden in 2017 did China let leak that they're building "refugee camps"?

 

19 minutes ago, Scott said:

OK, I see.  I agree with the first half, but I still really doubt that China wants North Korea to have nukes or even that they are indifferent.   China may use it as a bargaining chip, but that's not the same as wanting them to have nukes or being indifferent.  

DPRK having nukes is irrelevant to Chinese trading strategy.  All governments assume DPRK is ALREADY nuke capable as of 2005 so the issue is moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another tangent, I wonder how "communist" China really is?   I know that the ruling party is still the Communist Party, but economically they are creeping more and more towards capitalism.  

The brand of communism in China now compared to the brand of communism under Mao Zedong is very different.    If you were to visit China, you might not even notice that it is communist except for being reminded by all the imagery and signs.    Although things have been slowly changing since the death of Mao Zedong, they did pick up the pace after the fall of the Soviet Union and the transition of Eastern Europe from communism.   

The Communist Party of China calls its current system  "socialist market economy", but it's really moving towards capitalism.   The biggest industries are still state owned, but the economy is decidedly a market one.

I also wonder how long China will remain with the Communist Party as the only governing party in China (other parties currently exist, but do not govern)?    

I'm not saying that it will definitely happen, but within the next decade, I wouldn't be surprised if the Communist Party ceases to be the only governing party in China.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scott said:

On another tangent, I wonder how "communist" China really is?   I know that the ruling party is still the Communist Party, but economically they are creeping more and more towards capitalism.  

The brand of communism in China now compared to the brand of communism under Mao Zedong is very different.    If you were to visit China, you might not even notice that it is communist except for being reminded by all the imagery and signs.    Although things have been slowly changing since the death of Mao Zedong, they did pick up the pace after the fall of the Soviet Union and the transition of Eastern Europe from communism.   

The Communist Party of China calls its current system  "socialist market economy", but it's really moving towards capitalism.   The biggest industries are still state owned, but the economy is decidedly a market one.

I also wonder how long China will remain with the Communist Party as the only governing party in China (other parties currently exist, but do not govern)?    

I'm not saying that it will definitely happen, but within the next decade, I wouldn't be surprised if the Communist Party ceases to be the only governing party in China.     

Okay.  Here you need to differentiate Domestic and International.  China is Communist domestically.  It wildly uses Capitalist principles internationally.  So basically - they use Capitalism to vacuum foreign money INTO China.  Then use Communist principles to distribute that money to its large population.  Also, they use Communist principles to manufacture for foreign trade then use Capitalist principles to sell what they manufacture.  Domestic trade (family enterprises) continue to remain that uniquely Chinese brand of "my family buys from your family" thing.

The Chinese people want it this way so it is highly unlikely it's going to change anytime soon.  They just gave Xi an unlimited term.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Think about it.

The source of the "refugee camps" story is a leak from a tech firm in China.  "Leaks" are something that happens in the democratic US.  "Leaks" don't happen in China.  Imagine what China can do to a tech firm who leaks something that they don't want to leak.  So, when a news story source is a "leak" with impunity, you can be assured, China intended it to leak. 

So, why the leak of refugee camps?  Because... Euro-centrists and Trump's resistance are pro refugee camps.  By the way - this story was from 2017 - when the "my rocket is bigger than your rocket" thing was the thing of the day and China was gaining EU pieces on its trading chess board preparing for the coming negotiations.

I just don't buy that its all a conspiracy.   

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Now, another thing to think about... there are hundreds of thousands of North Korean refugees that have fled North Korea through China.  China hasn't built refugee camps for them nor given them asylum.  Rather, they have been sending everyone they caught to North Korea... not South Korea like Mongolia does.  So, why all of a sudden in 2017 did China let leak that they're building "refugee camps"?

There have been an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 North Korean refugees that have fled from China over a period of 66 years.   That's different than potentially millions of refugees flooding the area in a short time period.   Also, right now China can send them back rather easily and they do so.     That wouldn't be the case during an entire regime collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scott said:

I just don't buy that its all a conspiracy.   

That's your prerogative.

 

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

There have been an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 North Korean refugees that have fled from China over a period of 66 years.   That's different than potentially millions of refugees flooding the area in a short time period.   Also, right now China can send them back rather easily and they do so.     That wouldn't be the case during an entire regime collapse.

If the regime collapses, that means the DMZ is defunct and RoK will take all of them through the DMZ.  Koreans, like the Chinese, are very nationalistic.  They wish for all Koreans to be one Korea.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay.  Here you need to differentiate Domestic and International.  China is Communist domestically.  It wildly uses Capitalist principles internationally.  So basically - they use Capitalism to vacuum foreign money INTO China.  Then use Communist principles to distribute that money to it's large population.

The Chinese people want it this way so it is highly unlikely it's going to change anytime soon.  They just gave Xi an unlimited term.

Well sort of.   They are kind of in a hybrid position now, even domestically.   China isn't capitalist yet, but they are slowly moving that way.   Time will tell I guess.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott said:

Well sort of.   They are kind of in a hybrid position now, even domestically.   China isn't capitalist yet, but they are slowly moving that way.   Time will tell I guess.  

I edited that post to include domestic trade.  Domestic trade has always been the same before and after Communism - family to family.  By the way, even Chinese who have migrated to the Philippines still operate this way... family to family between Chinese families.  Then shark capitalists with non-Chinese.  Even if they've been Filipinos for over a century.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If the regime collapses, that means the DMZ is defunct and RoK will take all of them through the DMZ.

All 25 million of them, just like that?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scott said:

All 25 million of them, just like that?   

Yes.  It is the dream of RoK - enshrined in their laws - to take every single North Korean into RoK to make one Korea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Domestic trade has always been the same before and after Communism - family to family. 

OK, but when I have been to China, they sure tried to sell me a lot of stuff and I wasn't family.   They have a lot of McDonalds restaraunts too, at least in the big cities.      :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  It is the dream of RoK - enshrined in their laws - to take every single North Korean into RoK to make one Korea.

Serious question:   Do you think that the entire country would all immediately flee to South Korea instead of a lot of them fleeing to China?    

Also keep in mind that North Koreans are brainwashed into hating the South Koreans (and of course Japan and the US).  

A lot of North Koreans (officially all of them, but you know how that goes) also believe that their leader is a near god and a divine being and we all know what he says about South Korea and the West.   

I would think that potentially, a lot of refugees would flee to China.   

Also, keep in mind that I'm saying what China would be concerned about.

Personally, I think almost all of us in the US would like to see a regime change in North Korea (even if a lot of US citizens don't want to go to war over it).  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scott said:

OK, but when I have been to China, they sure tried to sell me a lot of stuff and I wasn't family.   They have a lot of McDonalds restaraunts too, at least in the big cities.      :)

Dude... they smell laowai from a mile away.  ;)

Ok, joking aside... McDonald's (and KFC before that) entered China through a special economic agreement... why did China do this?  To take more foreign money into China through the tourist trade.  But, it quickly became a "novelty experience" for Chinese so now Chinese families own McDonald's franchises in the same way they own family restaurants.  I think China has the most McDonald's franchises outside of the USA - I could be remembering this incorrectly.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Scott said:

Serious question:   Do you think that the entire country would all immediately flee to South Korea instead of a lot of them fleeing to China?     

Also keep in mind that North Koreans are brainwashed into hating the South Koreans (and of course Japan and the US).  

A lot of North Koreans (officially all of them, but you know how that goes) also believe that their leader is a near god and a divine being and we all know what he says about South Korea and the West.   

100% in my opinion - if they are given the choice.  Today, if refugees could go through the DMZ into South Korea that is what they would do instead of having to go through China to go to South Korea (which is what most of them try to do).

Brainwashed North Koreans aren't going to flee to China either.  They're brainwashed to be Nationalistic.  They will stay and fight in North Korea - to the death.

 

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

I would think that potentially, a lot of refugees would flee to China.   

Also, keep in mind that I'm saying what China would be concerned about.

Location alone guarantees this.  You go through the path of least resistance.  So if you're close to the Chinese border, it just might be more survivable to run to China rather than go through the warzone to go south.  China, of course, can send them all straight to South Korea - if they so desire.

 

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

Personally, I think almost all of us in the US would like to see a regime change in North Korea (even if a lot of US citizens don't want to go to war over it).  

You know... normally, I would think so.  But today's leftists have proven to be irrational as evidenced by their propping up of the Kims during the Olympics and the propensity of the rank-and-file vocal leftists to swallow MSM propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

In any case, Trump is not going for a regime change.  And that's basically because he is looking at this as an economic problem and not a military one.  The North Koreans have high regard for the Kims so, I think, Trump is looking at this as the Kims being the stabilizing factor in the DPRK.  Add to that Jong-un proving to be unlike his father and grandfather before him... things might not need a regime change to effect ideological change in the DPRK.

Anyway, I'm off for the weekend.  Hope you got something out of the conversation like I have and I thank you for that.  Here's a gift for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this