China is fucked! Trump is the best!

[PTADER]

Just get the fuck out of here and go to your Commie country for good. Nobody will remember you here.

You always like to get into disputes. Oh, I forgot that this is the nature of the Commies. 1 day they don't quarrel, they will die.

Leongsam had already proved you wrong here.

You sound like a needy faggot. Grow some balls and a spine and learn to stand on your own two feet. Argue out your case like man. Don't lean on someone or use someone's crutches, even if that someone is the forum owner, as "evidence" that you are "right".

Leongsam may be the owner of this forum. That does not mean everything he says is right or the gospel truth.

 

[Leongsam]

Currently, just by removing the tariffs for Made-In-America vehicles alone is not enough to see much of a dent in China's trade surplus with the US. GM is already heavily invested and co-partnered with the Chinese companies to produce cars domestically. Even Tesla is going into production in China, but I think it's a big mistake because eventually, their IP rights will get stolen and you'll get a faked Tesla on their streets within 2 years.

I'm using vehicles as an example to illustrate why the balance of payments is skewed in China's favor. There are many other tariffs and all need to be sorted out as part of a package that spells a fairer deal.

 

[Leongsam]

Why don't you go beyond your selective use of only "cars"???

I have stated "Chinese thrift" and its effects on deficits as a fact. It is supported by the IMF's studies and stats.

I have not stated this trait as a "cultural superiority".

Why don't you write to the IMF and tell them their studies, stats and conclusions are wrong?

Nobody is saying that Chinese "thrift" is not a factor. There are very few issues in the world today that are not multi faceted.

I'm using cars as an example to illustrate the uneven playing field. There are thousands of other tariffs that need to be either removed or reduced significantly in order to make trade between the US and China compete on equal terms. If China comes out on top because of "thrift" then so be it. Trump can then no longer claim that unequal tariffs are the cause.

As for the IMF I'd rather not comment because I have long since lost faith in the independence of such bodies. Anyone can write articles to suit their agenda. I just look at the data and judge for myself.

 

[Leongsam]

Can't blame you for not knowing. You are an aneh and outsider to fine Chinese culture and values. BTW Thambi, is the IMF "talking cock" as well?

That's a good one. You have a sense of humor after all.

 

[Leongsam]

You sound like a needy faggot. Grow some balls and a spine and learn to stand on your own two feet. Argue out your case like man. Don't lean on someone or use someone's crutches, even if that someone is the forum owner, as "evidence" that you are "right".

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and argue your case instead of relying on copying and pasting articles from dubious sources.

I have no problems with referencing of articles in order to get data to support your case but to put faith in the far fetched conclusions that some of these articles come up with does nothing to bolster your own case.

China currently imposes far higher tariffs on US goods than the US does on Chinese goods. That is either a fact or it isn't.

If it is a fact then it definitely affects the trade balance.

If it is isn't true then show me tariff figures that point to a level playing field.

 

[PTADER]

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and argue your case instead of relying on copying and pasting articles from dubious sources.

I have done that. I have argued my case. I decided to backed them up when you carried on. Just because you don't like the facts and figures staring and contradicting you in the face does not make the IMF a "dubious source".

Also, you too have relied on copying and pasting articles. So why the double standards, self-righteousness and two-faced hypocrisy?

With the speed you googled, copied and pasted some of the very lengthy "copy and paste" articles you posted, I doubt you even bothered to read them or check whether they are reliable or dubious sources before posting them.

If I have to guess, for you it was all about throwing smoke bombs. That will explain why you didn't even realise that one of the "reliable" articles you posted contradicted not only your own argument but had no bearing about "personal" savings which was the issue in contention at that point.

 

[Leongsam]

I have done that. I have argued my case. I decided to backed them up when you carried on. Just because you don't like the facts and figures staring and contradicting you in the face does not make the IMF a "dubious source".

Also, you too have relied on copying and pasting articles. So why the double standards, self-righteousness and two-faced hypocrisy?

With the speed you googled, copied and pasted some of the very lengthy "copy and paste" articles you posted, I doubt you even bothered to read them or check whether they are reliable or dubious sources before posting them.

If I have to guess, for you it was all about throwing smoke bombs. That will explain why you didn't even realise that one of the "reliable" articles you posted contradicted not only your own argument but had no bearing about "personal" savings which was the issue in contention at that point.

I stated my case very clearly. You keep harping on some airy fairy concept of "culture" and attribute this cultural difference as the primary cause of the trade deficit.

I just stuck to the facts and that is that China's tariffs are higher.

What you lack is graciousness to admit that you are wrong on this issue.

 

[ChristoJacb]

Yin Nah Deh! Huawei has overtaken iPhone in the market now. Think about it

 

[PTADER]

As for the IMF I'd rather not comment because I have long since lost faith in the independence of such bodies. Anyone can write articles to suit their agenda. I just look at the data and judge for myself.

Sure but let me guess. You will putting these same IMF-that-lack-idependence articles up if you think they will bolster your argument or fit your world view.

As for your "Anyone can write articles to suit their agenda", isn't this how this whole thing started? By you not arguing your own case, but by copying and pasting the very first article from Forbes in this thread which suited your own agenda and world view?

Forbes is an American magazine. And as an American magazine, you can expect it to espouse an American-centric world view just as the Global Times and Chinese magazines will espouse a Chinese-centric world view.

 

[Leongsam]

Sure but let me guess. You will putting these same IMF-that-lack-idependence articles up if you think they will bolster your argument or fit your world view.

At the end of beating about the bush do you agree that China imposes higher tariffs on US goods than the US does on Chinese goods?

The answer is a simple Yes or No. Choose one.

 

[PTADER]

I stated my case very clearly. You keep harping on some airy fairy concept of "culture" and attribute this cultural difference as the primary cause of the trade deficit.

I just stuck to the facts and that is that China's tariffs are higher.

What you lack is graciousness to admit that you are wrong on this issue.

What "I stated my case" when you relied on an article from the Forbes magazines to kick this off?

This is what I stated from the start:

​

"A large reason for the disparity is cultural."​

I did not say the "only reason". The distinction and nuances of language may be lost on you which will explain your ongoing smokebombs.

And now, a new and irrelevant smoke bomb about "graciousness".

To make to make it clear, simply add the adjective "largely cultural" in my subsequent posts. In normal writing, this would be cumbersome and not necessary as the writer has already defined such words right at the start.

Again, just because you are the owner of this forum does not mean everything you say is right. Your head must have swelled a fair bit from the hero-worshipping you get from some of these starry-eyed forummers who think everything that rolls of your mouth is the gospel truth.

 

[Leongsam]

What "I stated my case" when you relied on an article from the Forbes magazines to kick this off?

This is what I stated from the start:

​

"A large reason for the disparity is cultural."​

I did not say the "only reason". The distinction and nuances of language may be lost on you which will explain your ongoing smokebombs.

And now, a new and irrelevant smoke bomb about "graciousness".

To make to make it clear, simply add the adjective "largely cultural" in my subsequent posts. In normal writing, this would be cumbersome and not necessary as the writer has already defined such words right at the start.

Again, just because you are the owner of this forum does not mean everything you say is right. Your head must have swelled a fair bit from the hero-worshipping you get from some of these starry-eyed forummers who think everything that rolls of your mouth is the gospel truth.

"Largely Cultural" has nothing to do with the current trade war. Trade wars are started because one or both parties feel that tariffs are being used unfairly.

You contend that the cause is largely cultural but that is just a contention no matter how many articles you copy and paste to support your case.

The only way of finding out the actual cause is to even the playing field by adjusting tariffs.

If tariffs are removed and the huge deficit remains then Trump will have to shut his trap. Until then people like yourself can continue to lace your rhetoric with opinions rather than facts.

 

[PTADER]

At the end of beating about the bush do you agree that China imposes higher tariffs on US goods than the US does on Chinese goods?

The answer is not simply a Yes or No. Choose one.

The world is not in black and white nor the answer simply a "Yes" or No" just because you want to make a point. Don't take my word for this. Take your own, the one in which you use "multifaceted".

"Nobody is saying that Chinese "thrift" is not a factor. There are very few issues in the world today that are not multi faceted." ​

Why do you think the other countries like Canada, Mexico, India and the European Union - it's not all about China - struck back with increased tariffs when higher US tariffs were imposed on them based on the claim that they had "higher" tariffs for US products?

The US should be the last to bitch about tariffs. A large part of their wealth was generated by tariffs which they first enacted as law ("Tariff of 1789") after they attained independence.

Once again, it is not simply a "Yes" or "No" answer. There are other factors involved. This includes China's current designation as a "developing country" by the WTO, and with that designation, the lawful "benefits" that derives from that status. It also includes the American's determination to prevent China's "Made in 2025" plan from coming to fruition and overtaking the US current technological supremacy. It's not a simplistic "Yes or "No" issue.

 

[winners]

That's a good one. You have a sense of humor after all.

We all know what you mean. He's just making a fool of himself here. Cannot be blamed after all, he's such a retard. People of fine culture don't shit around anywhere that's convenient to them. I understand Sam, I understand.

 

[PTADER]

If tariffs are removed and the huge deficit remains then Trump will have to shut his trap. Until then people like yourself can continue to lace your rhetoric with opinions rather than facts.

It's an opinion supported by facts and data from the IMF, unlike the the magazines you quoted from.

 

[winners]

What you lack is graciousness to admit that you are wrong on this issue.

The word "graciousness" doesn't exist in his very limited vocabulary. Forgive him. It's pointless to keep on arguing with such a nerd.

 

[PTADER]

We all know what you mean. He's just making a fool of himself here. Cannot be blamed after all, he's such a retard. People of fine culture don't shit around anywhere that's convenient to them. I understand Sam, I understand.

Who are your "we". How many of these "we"s?

Like I said, you sound like a needy, pathetic faggot when you try to fellate the forum owner's dick. I actually had goose pimples when I read that faggoty "I-understand-Sam,-I-understand"nonsense.

Again, grow some balls and a spine and learn to stand on your own two feet.

 

[Leongsam]

The world is not in black and white nor the answer simply a "Yes" or No" just because you want to make a point. Don't take my word for this. Take your own, the one in which you use "multifaceted".

"Nobody is saying that Chinese "thrift" is not a factor. There are very few issues in the world today that are not multi faceted." ​

Why do you think the other countries like Canada, Mexico, India and the European Union - it's not all about China - struck back with increased tariffs when higher US tariffs were imposed on them based on the claim that they had "higher" tariffs for US products?

The US should be the last to bitch about tariffs. A large part of their wealth was generated by tariffs which they first enacted as law ("Tariff of 1789") after they attained independence.

Once again, it is not simply a "Yes" or "No" answer. There are other factors involved. This includes China's current designation as a "developing country" by the WTO, and with that designation, the lawful "benefits" that derives from that status. It also includes the American's determination to prevent China's "Made in 2025" plan from coming to fruition and overtaking the US current technological supremacy. It's not a simplistic "Yes or "No" issue.

Tariffs are necessary at certain stages of a country's development.

A 20% difference in tariffs for automobiles is definitely not necessary to protect China in this day and age especially when it is being used to force the transfer of technology which is then used by China without license.

If you think that the current situation is fair then I have nothing further to say. Your attitude, along with other looney statements about China's "benign" intentions simply reflects the fact that your chauvinism overrides your logic.

 

[Leongsam]

Who are your "we". How many of these "we"s?

Like I said, you sound like a needy, pathetic faggot when you try to fellate the forum owner's dick. I actually had goose pimples when I read that faggoty "I-understand-Sam,-I-understand"nonsense.

Again, grow some balls and a spine and learn to stand on your own two feet.

Your stance that anyone who agrees with me is "sucking my dick" shows just how pathetic you are.

Nobody gets paid to suck up to me. They gain no privileges just as those who curse me suffer no consequence. You simply cannot accept the possibility that it's because I make more sense than you do so you resort to vulgarities and name calling.

 

[PTADER]

Just get the fuck out of here and go to your Commie country for good. Nobody will remember you here.

You are an aneh. I am a Chinese. The only thing we share in common here is that we are guests in this forum.

The only person here who has the right to tell me to "get the fuck out" is the forum owner. If he does so, I will be out in an instant.

Don't forget your place as a guest in this forum.