China boycotts Western clothes brands over Xinjiang cotton
economist.com
economist.com
I want to share two things:
* People's reactions to BCI in China are divided by ages -- younger Chinese prefer goods from companies kind to China.
* Western people's ideas about China are also divided by ages -- you have to refresh your view about the world after 18 months.
Growth means everything. The American people should control covid-19 as quick as possible -- make US a qualified competitor to China.
First point implies younger chinese seem to have more national pride? I saw a few videos where it's not too weird for young people to wear traditional chinese clothing in public anymore.
What do people think about the accusations regarding Xinjiang?
30+ yrs of living in mainland.
> First point implies younger chinese seem to have more national pride? I saw a few videos where it's not too weird for young people to wear traditional chinese clothing in public anymore.
Mostly true.
> What do people think about the accusations regarding Xinjiang?
People don't CARE too much about it. We don't quite understand what US media is saying and why saying that a lot. What I see is covid-19 is changing opinions towards both US and CH govs.
And the US is already a competitor to China, to think otherwise is delusional. No matter how you slice it:
1) more tighter alliances, 800 military bases around the world vs 3 for China. These are diplomatic encirclements, including South East Asia.
2) dollar as world reserve currency
3) most of the top internet brands, aerospace companies, EV, etc
4) Top silicon (eg Apple, AMD, NVIDIA, etc)
I mean, if you look at high value industry vs low, China is the country catching up, not the one leading.
And without innovative companies like Foxconn and joint ventures from foreign countries where would they be in the pecking order?
Yes they’ve made absolutely astounding progress over the last 20 years, but I think it is going to some people’s heads and they need to cool the chest beating Wolf Warrior nationalism stuff for a bit. Their GDP per capita PPP is still 1/6th of the US.
In the 80s there was much lament over how Japan was making everything, and how they were going to surpass the US. And then came the Lost Generation, we know how that turned out. Cheap labor manufacturing is a temporary comparative advantage, one that moves to Vietnam, India, or Brazil soon. And eventually, with 3D printing, robotics, and other automation, a lot of the advantage will disappear.
Silicon Fabs for example, can be built anywhere, as they're almost 100% automated. The crucial limiting factor these days is often lithography tools and capital. So for example, Xi Jinping's 5 year plant isn't likely to give them EUV lithography fabs if ASML decides not to sell them any IP. There's no real competitive advantage to Mainland China except ignoring environmental laws, but at the same time, there's a lot of risk, so who wants to commit $10 billion in capital given the political risks of a capricious and non-transparent government who often ignores the rule of law.
https://inf.news/en/world/f73406a169d9f85896ccc124e3d3d566.h...
He also did the cartoon of the Australia solder killing a child which the BBC called a "fake image of an Australian soldier killing an Afghan child" because it seems the Chinese are not the only government media playing propaganda.
So for the BBC viewers I should mention the 'photo' above is fake.
Maybe this is the original in Chinese -
https://club.6parkbbs.com/military/index.php?app=forum&act=t...
But I find the market of machine translated blog posts quite interesting, these add to the community, compared to the "English -> random machine translated language -> English" spam, but is also interesting.
But the brands pushed themselves into a conundrum, they have statements against exploitation and treating people with dignity, etc., and on the other hand they turn a blind eye to the cheap (forced) labor in western China and enjoy the nice profits from the cities in Eastern China. So they ignore their supposed convictions.
if you only count goods. if you count goods + services, US is still the biggest trading partner
It is a big deal for Western companies given their Embedded Growth Obligations. A lot of their stock price and chosen leadership is justified only by the potential for growth that only winning the Chinese market can possibly provide.
It is a big deal. One brand mentioned had 520 shops in China. I don't see how things are harder to sell. The article even mentions that covid cause a decline in sales but the higher sales in China can offset it for some (Hugo boss I think was the example).
It would be nice to have one, so I know what to buy.
> Multiple Chinese celebrities publicly renounced brands they had endorsed but which have stuck by earlier statements about Xinjiang (or not indicated any change). These include H&M, as well as Adidas, Nike, Puma and Uniqlo. Zhou Dongyu, an actress, dropped her deal with Burberry because she said the British maker of posh trench-coats, a member of the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), a due-diligence consortium, had not “clearly and publicly stated its stance on cotton from Xinjiang”
> Several apparel firms, including Muji, Fila China and the Chinese operation of Hugo Boss, gave testimonials on Chinese social media that they support Xinjiang cotton (all three of those companies have also issued statements from corporate headquarters acknowledging concerns about allegations of forced labour in Xinjiang).
> Other firms have apparently taken down earlier statements about Xinjiang. They include PVH, which owns Calvin Klein, and Inditex, which owns Zara, among other brands.
- sanctioned US/Canadian/UK/EU individuals and entities
- erased H&M in all major Chinese platforms https://wwd.com/business-news/retail/hm-face-new-boycott-chi...
While that's happening, China has also
- signed a 25-year cooperation agreement with Iran
- censored 'stock market' term from social media searches after stocks posted longest losing streak https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/china-banned...
- attacked US in the high-level Alaska talks, saying "black Americans are being slaughtered" while adding 'We will always stand up for our principles for our people' https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56452471
- parked hundreds of ships near a reef in order to possibly build more artificial islands https://www.npr.org/2021/03/26/981668318/chinese-ship-deploy...
My take: a dictatorship running scared on a declining economy, with enemies surrouding it and around the world, needs to bark loud and ramp up its military. it will either fade away into isolation, or it will do something stupid like attack Taiwan, whose missile capabilities can hit Beijing and three gorges and basically collapse China, and get sanctioned by countries worldwide, and fade away into oblivion
Whenever there's a rising power that threatens the current number #1, you'll see such events happening. It has happened time and again and the only difference now is that there is far less blood being spilled.
On the flip side, the rest of the world remembers what dirty things the US did during it's hold on global power. WMDs in iraq, double ethical standards in conflicts around the world. In this case many chinese think this whole debacle is a based off lies fabricated by dubious western sources (which has some basis behind it) and they're reacting accordingly.
As was shown when China helped the US during the UN security meeting to not declare the iraq war illegal, big powers will abuse whatever they have and can get in their own interests. The problem is whether you western folks will be played by your institutions into doing things that destroy your own credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world.
This is very true, our media lies to us, and it lies to you, but isn't there something to be said about not having the freedom to think what you want in your own country, nor being able to read what information you want?
No matter who commits a condemn-able act it should be condemned, most of all if it's your own group. The most scary thing to me about China or a Chinese hegemony is not the shift of power, but that Chinese citizens are unable to be informed nor are they able to condemn their own government. There is no public veto for CPC behavior. China has assumed the role of the victim (century of humiliation), but acts as the abuser (destruction of Tibetan/Uigher/Hong Kong culture and a desire to destroy Taiwan), and then justifies the abuse it doles out by the abuses it has received.
The second most scary thing to me about Chinese hegemony is that dialogue is primarily based around power. Who has the power to do what, not what is morally right, not the rules that should apply to all countries and people, but most of all itself. So what is China's moral basis and ethics system founded upon? Might makes right. That is terrifying to me.
> The problem is whether you western folks will be played by your institutions into doing things that destroy your own credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Does China's own credibility not matter?
Sure, but priorities need to be in order. The average chinese asian person prefers food, water, medicine, competence, before a moderate amount of freedom within reason. Their 'overton windows' are not as wide as america where you have NRA blocking gun law reviews despite mass shootings. You'd also never have someone of Trump-like competence in charge; there's a certain degree of vetting within the chinese political system.
> The second most scary thing to me about Chinese hegemony is that dialogue is primarily based around power. Who has the power to do what, not what is morally right, not the rules that should apply to all countries and people, but most of all itself. So what is China's moral basis and ethics system founded upon? Might makes right. That is terrifying to me.
'Might makes right' is omnipresent in negotiations of every geopolitical sphere of influence. Yes, the chinese have been increasingly aggressive as of recent, but still I can pluck some facts to ally your fears:
- China hasn't invaded any other country since 1979 Vietnam. That's 30+ years.
- It's more interested in growing it's soft power.
- Chinese have had their children being sent to US varsities. When they return to China they'll have a certain degree of ethical standards and impact over the long term. China's government does still listen to its citizens despite what you think.
> Does China's own credibility not matter?
Yes it matters. It's trying to setup global institutions like the Belt Road Initiative, and other Asian lending bank which I can't remember the name of (which the US dislikes). Time will tell if it makes the same mistakes as the western ones have. As I said, watch them.
Do you think fox news viewers see themselves as manipulated? Do you think these people are born fearing their guns will be taken away and democrats want to murder babies? Do you think they see these things you say as bad? Fox news viewers perceive themselves to be informed, they are adamant that they are and that what they are told is right. They believe their politicians are competent despite all evidence to the contrary.
You say the overton window is more wide in America, but ignore the idea that the overton window is controlled in both china and republican controlled media. The system is the flaw, not the instantiated output of the system.
Do you think with controlled information you could influence Chinese citizen preferences? Do you think an average person would be able to discover incompetence if all whistleblowers were arrested? Do you think the media would report criminal incompetence? If there is incompetence, but the state run media protects it, how do you know if your perception of competence is even remotely correct?
If your government was performing genocide, but reporting on it in a completely different framing, and limiting all direct evidence of the topic, do you think its possible you could be misinformed? Let's assume China is doing truly evil things in Xinjiang. If that was a fact, how would that make you feel?
> Trump-like competence in charge;
Yeah. I am happy Trump was not able to execute any kind of great leap forward.
> China hasn't invaded any other country since 1979 Vietnam. That's 30+ years.
China doesn't invade countries. It declares its territory and then says stay out of internal matters. Otherwise, it might make me feel better, but it's very curious to me, that while I (an American) was in Vietnam, Vietnamese seemed to not have much of a problem with me, but they were very open about their dislike of China.
> Chinese have had their children being sent to US universities.
One can hope, but the idea that investment into china will lead to democratization or a boost to human rights seems pretty bleak. China's action's in Hong Kong made it's heart very clear.
My fears are not allayed and won't be until China gives up on any form of military conquest of Taiwan and Chinese people can speak freely.
Has my own country done some despicable things? Yes. Is it still doing despicable things? Yes. That doesn’t mean I have no right to point out abuse elsewhere. Abuse is abuse; to the victim, it makes very little difference whether it’s one government or another. If abusive actions come to my attention, the absolute least I can do is condemn them.
Why trust an institution that lies? What happened to the truth? Or do westerners value their version of freedom over the truth? If you want relations to move forward consider that.
My words? I don’t think I’ve ever quoted anyone by that name, let alone stated an opinion based on such a source.
> To China you westerners look like the guy on the higher moral ground
“You Westerners?” I’m me. I have opinions of my own. I act as an individual. I neither support nor condone many of the actions taken by my government or other people in my country—I’m frequently disgusted by their actions. We are not a single entity; we are a loose collection of individuals who disagree more often than we agree. I do not represent “the West,” nor does “the West” represent me. I’m strongly opposed to arbitrary groupings of people based on factors they cannot reasonably control.
> yelling slogan after slogan together with other like minded people but when approached with facts continue to repeat the same slogans.
What slogans? I’m not part of some hivemind; I develop my own opinions based on a wide array of sources, and those opinions are in constant flux. I do not subscribe to a single philosophy or political ideal.
> Why trust an institution that lies?
Which institution? I don’t trust any media outlet or governmental institution to provide objective, unbiased information. I question everything. I question my government, I question China’s government. What have any of them done to deserve my trust? Nothing. Nothing at all.
In contrast, China right now seems to be responding right now to anyone who dares to criticize it with immediate sanctions and reprisals. I'm not immediately aware of any time in the history of hegemon replacement cycles where either the old or the new hegemon acted in such a manner.
[1] Amusingly, the dish isn't even French, it's Belgian.
The Nixon administration took another approach in the US: they started the war on drugs to discredit and silence the anti war hippie movement. This worked fine for those in power, but had and still has a lot of victims. Chairman Xi would have probably pulled a Tiananmen.
The CCP is different. Their censorship is overt and draconian. Even the most wealthy and powerful citizens of China risk being taken in for questioning for speaking the truth about power.
[1] Manning, Snowden, Assange et al notwithstanding.
> China sanctioned US/Canadian/UK/EU individuals and entities
> erased H&M (swedish company) in all major Chinese platforms
- world trade - PPP - Navy size
Yes China Is Lying About the Size of Their Economy
https://fortune.com/2021/03/11/stimulus-package-covid-relief...
The $1.9 trillion stimulus package could see the U.S. economy outpace China’s for the first time in 45 years
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4414648-chinas-shifting-dem...
China's Shifting Demographics Suggest Slower Economic growth
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/05/china-economic-growth-p...
China Signals Economic Caution at People’s Congress
https://www.politico.eu/article/china-topples-us-as-eus-top-... China topples US as EU Top trade partner
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2019/08/20/Report-Chinas-mi... Report: China's military could overwhelm U.S. forces in Indo-Pacific region
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-10-01/From-nobody-to-somebod... China has the worlds largest high speed rail network
second link is only regarding goods. goods + services, US is EU top trade partner
third link: there are now Japan/Australian/US/UK/France/German warships patrolling in the indo-pacific region.
fourth link: costly to maintain, uncertainty post covid
At the end, the Brits fell after pummeling Germany two times. Both haven't recovered fully today. So this historical analogue doesn't really speak well to both US and China in the next, say, 3 generations. Wonder who would be the US in this situation though.
What matters is GDP/capita, not total output in a nation of 1.4 Billion people. You can easily get "first place" by redrawing boundaries around a bunch of poor and middle income nations. That redraw doesn't make anyone better off.
The Shanghai Communiqué - Joint Communique of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China, settled the Taiwan question in the 1970's:
http://www.taiwandocuments.org/communique01.htm
> The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves
If you put yourself in China's shoes, and consider China's history. How would you feel if a Chinese fleet was sailing off of the coast of California and stoking internal tensions?
The question is phrased awkwardly and with a forgone conclusion. The world "internal" is key. Does a Taiwanese see that as an internal issue? Did a Hong Kong person see that as an internal issue?
In an oppressor/opressee relationship I would probably feel much closer to the party being oppressed, and I would respect the "policing force" for protecting the more vulnerable party.
So in your own scenario, say Trump won through an obviously fraudulent election, and Hawaii no longer wanted to be a part of America (rightfully so!), and the Chinese military was protecting Hawaii from being ruled without public consent, I would very much be happy about this Chinese fleet. If America was actively trying to extinguish a "pacific islander cancer" or a "native american cancer" via slow genocide and culturally destructive tacitcs, I would say that is an incredibly morally just cause for this theoretical Chinese fleet. How would you feel about the theoretical chinese fleet if you were hawaiian?
Is America perfect (mexican border situation), no. But at least we can talk about our imperfections openly. We can have a discussion about this "evil" of "seperatism" if we wish.
How would you feel if you were Taiwanese? How would you feel if you were a native Hong Konger? How would you feel if you were a Uigher? Do Chinese citizens not have any empathy?
Have you ever been to Taiwan?
Considering your hypothetical scenario, it is hypothetical. The reality of the situation is, in 1970 the United States already conceded that Taiwan is part of China in exchange for a Chinese guarantee that the matter would be resolved peacefully. In Exchange we gained access to Chinese markets for which we all benefit tremendously today. China's UN representation and vote, was transferred from Taipei to Beijing.
The real question, is a difficult one. How far are we willing to go to enforce the wests concept of universalism? A loss of an aircraft carrier and 5,000 lives? All out war? The point was already conceded 40 years ago. Seems like stoking fires isn't in my personal interest, especially considering that is a war we would certainly lose. Whats the point of playing games you can't win?
Up until 2000 election, Kuomintang still hold majority power, with brief resurgence during 2008 election after DPP tried to separate Taiwan identity from China proper. The party position is generally unchanged: that they consider themselves the true government of China.
DPP's position to ignore one-China conundrum historically met with skepticism from industrialist and labor population, since a clear separation between two entities would mean a substantial damage in economy. DPP only regained their votes in 2016 after softening their stance on independence. And they're [slowly losing trust](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Taiwanese_presidential_el...) from swing voters, again.
So, yeah. Until Taiwan could make up its mind about their national identity and cross-strait relationship with Mainland China, it's still an internal issue.
> say Trump won through an obviously fraudulent election, and Hawaii no longer wanted to be a part of America (rightfully so!), and the Chinese military was protecting Hawaii from being ruled without public consent, I would very much be happy about this Chinese fleet.
That's a wildly different analogy. Imagine instead, that while the last election result is contested, a mob successfully storm the Capitol and reinstate Trump in his second term. Biden flee to Hawaii and declare the state as US government in exile.
Fast forward 30 years and nothing really settled between Republican in US and Democrats in Hawaii because diplomacy is hard and both refused to negotiate (one had the power while the other had the legitimacy). And then China started to put their fleet because Blacks, Native American, and "Hawaiian" is oppressed.
How would you think that would affect those people's future?
>So, yeah. Until Taiwan could make up its mind about their national identity and cross-strait relationship with Mainland China, it's still an internal issue.
This statement isn't at all good faith. Clearly it's much more complex than that. You are saying the party line while ignoring any possibility of good faith argument otherwise. There is no invocation of the idea of what is morally right. There is no contemplation of what the Taiwanese people see as best for themselves.
What do you think would happen in Taiwan today if they rescinded their "right" to rule China?
If you were Taiwanese, what would you want to happen?
If you were Non Han Taiwanese, what would you want to happen?
How do you think Taiwanese children grow up learning about the China Taiwan situation?
What kind of culture do you think young Taiwanese are indoctrinated with?
How do you think a society that has freedom of speech considers its loss?
How do you think a society that has rule of law considers its loss?
What was the Taiwanese reaction to Hong Kong?
Why do Taiwanese keep buying weapons?
Is all Chinese trade to Taiwan a "gift"?
What types of punitive things would China do for being embarrassed by Taiwan's rejection?
Is the KMT/DPP of today, the same ruling "party" with the same "mindset" of yesteryear?
Did the KMT have to step back on their pro China stance to become viable?
Are the children of these "rebels" supposed to pay for the crimes of their parents?
"Look, they said they're not independent, this is obviously an internal issue."
> How would you think that would affect those people's future?
That scenario makes no sense and there is insufficient information to judge it. It doesn't resonate with me. I wold probably be on one of the Islands.
You argued about "good faith" but your entire argument is based on one side being bad actor while ignoring the contemporary issue inside Taiwan itself. Taiwan already repeatedly stated that they don't need to "declare independence" since PRC is the rogue one. Unlike Tibet, it never got conquered. Unlike Hong Kong, it never handed over by previous custodian (Japan "acknowledge" whoever control Taiwan as its government, but establish diplomatic relationship with PRC later).
What matters is how they identify themselves as sovereign state. Separation of identity only started to formally considered after DPP won their first presidency in 2000. Meaning that majority of the adult population was raised with pan-China identity rather than separate Taiwanese identity. Which shows in 2004 referendum, where it failed due to low turnout. Since then, their strategy is to gradually push for identity shift while empowering indigenous population as counterbalance against KMT's popularity.
Subsequent position by KMT politician also soften the stance to acknowledge a stalemate (that PRC is not a rebel but de facto ruler of Mainland China) but refused to cede the position of de jure claimant.
> There is no invocation of the idea of what is morally right. There is no contemplation of what the Taiwanese people see as best for themselves.
Who are we to be a moral arbiter and decide what's best for others using warships? To call it a settled issue while Taiwanese still in the process of identity transition is, quite frankly, authoritarian decision.
Which is the point of my argument: they're currently sorting it out. And so far PRC is unwilling to use force to settle the dispute, which is a good sign. Any provocation by third party only put the Taiwanese in difficult position, since they are only treated as a proxy to pressure and "contain" China.
> Do you not see the slightest problem with the situation of holding a gun to someones head and then shouting "ARE YOU INDEPENDENT?!"
I don't, because that's not what happened. Taiwan is not the one China point the gun at, the rest of the world is. Don't you think its funny that for all the noise the West make, none of them formally acknowledge Taiwan sovereignty and dare to establish diplomatic relationship?
Compare the situation with state breakups in Caucasus and Balkan region, and you'll see that as long as PRC is "useful" and not as powerful, they'll be happy playing two legged approach.
> "Look, they said they're not independent, this is obviously an internal issue."
It's not due to lack of independence claim (see above), but because its pertained to the national identity, regardless of what current politician in power said. You don't "label" people as Taiwanese, Han, Hakka, Hokkien, etc. They have all the right to think, decide, and act upon their identity on their own volition. Whether pan-China identity or Taiwanese identity prevails is up to the Taiwanese citizen, hence it's an internal issue.
The problem with externally-triggered aggressiveness is that they also provide opportunity for pro-unification side within Taiwan to push their narrative and hold back the transition to "maintain the peace" by pushing pan-China identity.
> That scenario makes no sense
But that's exactly what happened with Taiwan-China situation. One is the exiled successor government, while the others is communist rebel that maintain control of the territory.
1. Hasn’t China’s economy been growing steadily for decades?
2. Hasn’t China formed new trading partnerships with many countries in Europe?
3. China is not a dictatorship.
2) Yes, but as with the agreements with my state (Victoria), those are fleeting and mostly gesture - the tide is turning against China since these wheels were set in motion several years ago
3) President for life? How isn't it a dictatorship? How is the leader replaced if the populace does not like him - and how do they make that known, when you can't even use an open communication platform like Clubhouse in China?
Technically you're right, but typically the highest priority for a dictator is to extend their tenure, indefinitely if at all possible, by exercising those broad powers.
Making a foundational set of laws dictator-proof is actually a hard problem. It is kind of like designing a programming language that is deliberately Turing-incomplete. You're trying to make abusing the system impossible, without crippling the desired functionality.
IMO dictatorship / monarchy is a funny thing because after a certain scale the person at the top simply cannot be an absolutely power in the same way because there's too much going on. I think there more reasonable things to look at are:
- How many extra luxuries does then nominal ruler get, and do they "distract" from their power/responsibilities. (Perhaps there is even a strict luxery power trade off? not sure.)
- How is centralized is the bureaucracy, e.g. how many people outside the capital have power greater than those in the capital.
That said the way in which Pooh Bear uses the anticorruption law to silence and jail political rivals is definitely evidence of dictatorship.
Not steadily - but geometrically (if not near-exponentially). Rapid expansion is not sustainable. I compare China's growth from the 1970s through to the early-2000s to the US's postwar boom years: eventually things settle-down. I suspect the people at the top (whether in the CCP, private business interests, whereever) are uncomfortably having to acclimatize to this slower world of theirs they now find themselves in.
> Hasn’t China formed new trading partnerships with many countries in Europe?
News to me. Link?
> China is not a dictatorship
You're technically correct - but consider that China is simply too big to be run as a dictatorship, and the CCP do not act in the interests of their citizens' human rights and individual freedoms.
I don't understand what China's leadership is afraid of such that they have their internet filter and suppress independent journalism. And I don't believe you can have economic freedom without also having individual freedom.
> You're technically correct - but consider that China is simply too big to be run as a dictatorship, and the CCP do not act in the interests of their citizens' human rights and individual freedoms. I don't understand what China's leadership is afraid of such that they have their internet filter and suppress independent journalism. You can't have economic freedom without individual freedom.
I’m not really here to defend or attack China - it just annoys me that such blatant misinformation is being spread.
Ya, it’s more like a family dictatorship where economic and political power is concentrated in the hand of a few “red” families. That they made that obvious with Xi is interesting.
Technically no, but without term limits and little accountability isn't the paramount leader a dictator in practice?
The tldr however is there is a difference. China is not a dictatorship. I’m not sure why such blatant misinformation is being spread.
I mean they’re literally different things. You wouldn’t call China a monarchy even though a monarch can do similar things to a dictator, right? If the goal is to say China is bad let’s just say that - let’s not misrepresent their form of government.
I don’t understand the relevance of the lack of term limits. Does not having term limits make a dictatorship?
Xi Jinping's centralization efforts during his term do strengthen the case for China becoming a dictatorship. The ending of term limits (as it does elsewhere) also likely signals a desire to vest power in the personal authority of the leader and not in a broader political party.
Parent says “you get dissappeared if you say anything about government”. When that is true, we call it dictatorship. Terminology does not matter. We are talking about practical results of it.
Fake GDP #s, especially since 2010. CCP does NOT have a growth goal in the recent five year plan, meaning they can't fake increasing defaults and can't increase construction spendings anymore due to ballooning debt.
> Hasn’t China formed new trading partnerships with many countries in Europe?
First time in 30 years EU has sanctioned China. The CAI deal (Europe-China trade deal) is now being put on hold since various members of EU being sanctioned. Potentially a dead trade deal going forward.
> China is not a dictatorship.
It is. Please read up on Xi Jing Ping's personality, his success on removing most of his enemies and secure his power, and changing the law for unlimited terms
> It is. Please read up on Xi Jing Ping's personality, his success on removing most of his enemies and secure his power, and changing the law for unlimited terms
How much do you know about Chinese politics? Xi Jing Pings power isn’t as absolute as the American media would like you to believe. In fact he’s in a very vulnerable position.
Growth was extraordinary, but there are definitely problems with empty apartments and shopping malls (at least in Beijing). It is difficult to pick out what is real growth and what is simply government driven.
> How much do you know about Chinese politics? Xi Jing Pings power isn’t as absolute as the American media would like you to believe. In fact he’s in a very vulnerable position.
Chinese politics are famously opaque (the national congress is obviously rubber stamp), but I think it’s pretty obvious now that a few red families are calling the shots, and Xi’s power as a princeling is far from illusory as it was with Hu (before I would have said party elders)
China’s economic census uncovers more fake data as officials promise ‘zero tolerance’ to data manipulation
https://www.heritage.org/international-economies/commentary/...
The Problem of False Chinese Economic Data
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-china-lying-about...
Yes China Is Lying About the Size of Their Economy
The heritage foundation at the very least is a conservative think tank, and American conservatives are every bit as ambitious and bad faith as the CPC when it comes to power.
China is likely exaggerating their growth but regardless it has been growing.