Utopia Talk / Politics / Now Huuwai gets destroyed

Average Ameriacn Member	Sat May 16 09:37:05 You try to kill us with a virus, we take away all your chips! MAGA! http://www...rom-global-chip-suppliers.html U.S.-China tensions rise as Trump administration moves to cut Huawei off from global chip suppliers Published Fri, May 15 The Trump administration on Friday moved to block shipments of semiconductors to Huawei Technologies from global chipmakers, in an action that could ramp up tensions with China. The U.S. Commerce Department said it was amending an export rule to “strategically target Huawei’s acquisition of semiconductors that are the direct product of certain U.S. software and technology.” The department added the “announcement cuts off Huawei’s efforts to undermine U.S. export controls.” The rule change is a blow to Huawei, the world’s no. 2 smartphone maker, as well as to Taiwan’s TSMC, a major producer of chips for Huawei’s HiSilicon unit as well as mobile phone rivals Apple and Qualcomm. Huawei, which needs semiconductors for its widely used smartphones and telecoms equipment, is at the heart of a battle for global technological dominance between the United States and China. The United States is trying to convince allies to exclude Huawei gear from next-generation 5G networks on grounds its equipment could be used by China for spying. Huawei has repeatedly denied the claim. Huawei has continued to use U.S. software and technology to design semiconductors, the Commerce Department said, despite being placed on a U.S. economic blacklist in May 2019. Under the rule change, foreign companies that use U.S. chipmaking equipment will be required to obtain a U.S. license before supplying certain chips to Huawei, or an affiliate like HiSilicon. In order for Huawei to continue to receive some chipsets or use some semiconductor designs tied to certain U.S. software and technology, it would need to receive licenses from the Commerce Department. National security concerns The rule change is to “prevent U.S. technologies from enabling malign activities contrary to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement, adding Huawei and its affiliates “have stepped-up efforts to undermine these national security-based restrictions.” The Commerce Department said the rule will allow wafers already in production to be shipped to Huawei as long as the shipments are complete within 120 days from Friday. Chipsets would need to be in production by Friday or they are ineligible under the rule. The United States placed Huawei and 114 affiliates on its economic blacklist citing national security concerns. That forced some U.S. and foreign companies to seek special licenses from the Commerce Department to sell to it, but China hawks in the U.S. government have been frustrated by the vast number of supply chains beyond their reach. Separately, the Commerce Department extended a temporary license that was set to expire Friday to allow U.S. companies, many of which operate wireless networks in rural America, to continue doing business with Huawei through Aug. 13. It warned it expected this would be the final extension. Reuters first reported the administration was considering changes to the Foreign Direct Product Rule, which subjects some foreign-made goods based on U.S. technology or software to U.S. regulations, in November. Most chip manufacturers rely on equipment produced by U.S. companies like KLA, Lam Research and Applied Materials, according to a report last year from China’s Everbright Securities. The Trump administration has taken a series of steps aimed at Chinese telecom firms in recent weeks. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last month began the process of shutting down the U.S. operations of three state-controlled Chinese telecommunications companies, citing national security risks. The FCC also in April approved Alphabet unit Google’s request to use part of an 8,000-mile undersea telecommunications cable between the United States and Taiwan, but not Hong Kong after U.S. agencies raised national security concerns. This week, President Donald Trump extended for another year a May 2019 executive order barring U.S. companies from using telecommunications equipment made by companies deemed to pose a national security risk, a move seen aimed at Huawei and peer ZTE Corp.
Paramount Member	Sat May 16 10:39:05 I feel that China should now stop exporting Rare Earth Minerals to the US. I mean, the US is begging for it. There is also no reason for China to keep exporting these minerals to the US when the US is attacking Chinese companies. I posted this article here earlier. I think its worth a repost: Are rare earth minerals China's trump card in its trade war with US? China has been signalling that it may restrict the export of rare earth minerals to the United States as the trade conflict between the two countries escalates. It is by far the largest producer of these raw materials, vital for many American industries including high-growth sectors such as electric car and wind turbine production. Last year, the US Geological Survey designated these minerals critical to the economy and national defence. "China is seriously considering restricting rare earth exports to the US," tweeted the editor of Chinese state-run Global Times this week. China's dominance of rare earth mining Yearly mine production (tonnes) Source: US Geological Survey In the refining of rare earth ores, China is even more dominant. Last year, almost 90% of all the processing into usable oxides was done in China. An Australian company operating in Malaysia produces almost all the rest. Over the past five years, China's exports of rare earth oxides have almost doubled, according to official Chinese statistics. How reliant on China is the US? Around 80% of the rare earths imported by the United States comes from China, according to US government data. Estonia, France and Japan also supply processed rare earths to the US, but the original ore comes from China. The one rare earth mine operating in the United States sends its ore to China for processing - and already faces a 25% import tariff imposed by China. There is an option for the US to import from Malaysia, but not in the quantities required. Also, the Malaysian government has threatened to discontinue production because of environmental concerns. Could the US start its own refining industry for rare earths? It's certainly possible, but this would take time and the sources of ore could be limited if China were ruled out. Until the 1980s, the US was in fact the largest producer of rare earths. China has restricted exports of rare earths before. In 2010, they did it against Japan, over a territorial dispute. The restriction of exports to the United States, if enforced, could have a major impact on major US industries worth trillions of dollars that rely on rare earth minerals. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48366074 ”Last year, the US Geological Survey designated these minerals critical to the economy and national defence. ” LOL. Game over!
jergul large member	Sat May 16 10:53:21 Trump is sort of bringing a knife to a gunfight here.
The Children Member	Sat May 16 14:20:22 damn straight! cut off these dirty snakes!
Pillz Member	Sat May 16 15:34:09 Few more weeks and jergul might jump. Off of putins lap and sit on Xi's
Habebe Member	Sat May 16 15:38:32 This wasulled over before, im not so sure this was a good idea, its a good thing that we sell them chips. Paramount, I think Trump would welcome that, he has already talked about losting rare earth as strategic and reopening our sources.I don't think it would take all that mugh.
Habebe Member	Sat May 16 16:27:58 This has been a discussion before Trump, he has pushed the issue though, rightfully so. If we take China at there word, which is a big if they will be out of REE within 20 years.Texas is beleived to have sully for 120 years and is being developed as we speak as well as a few others.
Habebe Member	Sat May 16 16:27:59 This has been a discussion before Trump, he has pushed the issue though, rightfully so. If we take China at there word, which is a big if they will be out of REE within 20 years.Texas is beleived to have sully for 120 years and is being developed as we speak as well as a few others.
Dukhat Member	Sun May 17 06:11:13 Trump doesn’t think long-term. Literally everything is about blaming a foreigner or gaslighting America so he can eke a win this November.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 06:34:59 Kiss goodbye to any respect for IPR. To much unilateral shit like this (it makes life too difficult for business in the rest of the world) and it is curtains for US hegemony. Ultimately, China makes this stuff cheaper than the US. US being centre of the global financial system is cheaper and easier to change than physical global supply chains. The benefit of a rules based system is that it creates certainty for business planning. If the US keeps breaking these rules, it hurts not just the Chinese but everyone else in the supply chain. In the end, what will happen is the rest of the world will adopt a rules based system centred on China, rather than the US, and remove any dependencies on the US.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 06:37:39 If it wasn't for brexit and the Euro crisis, the EU would be killing it right now. But the refusal to mutualise debt means the Euro can never challenge the dollar as a global currency, and brexit means that the EU doesn't have the global financial centre it had. If it did, it would be in prime position to insert itself into the role the US has occupied in terms of global trade.
The Children Member	Sun May 17 06:58:29 hababy thinks that... well herein lies the problem. u DUNT THINK. u r not capable of thinkin and ur not paid 2 think.
Pillz Member	Sun May 17 07:02:01 Seb wants people to play by the rules, but sides with china and has wet dreams about the EU. Cry more faggot, nobody care hear you over the giant dick you're sucking.
jergul large member	Sun May 17 08:45:49 China lifted export limitations on rem due to a wto ruling.
jergul large member	Sun May 17 08:47:06 It still has a export license system in place, but all licenses for export are currently granted.
Pillz Member	Sun May 17 09:12:28 Why rely on China for rem? There are deposits all over the place.
Dukhat Member	Sun May 17 10:20:31 Pillz with literally nothing to contribute than slack-jawed xenophobia.
The Children Member	Sun May 17 10:36:27 why we rely on america for anything. they have proven 2 be unreliable throughout the years and racist and xenophobic and only out 2 preserve there own little imperial world order where they wrongfully believe they rule da world. pillz u livin in a bubble?
jergul large member	Sun May 17 10:36:51 Its possible if you want to pay a premium Pillz.
Pillz Member	Sun May 17 10:55:49 There'll have to be a swift and readjustment of manufacturing and rem sourcing and associated costs. Because China won't be cheap forever, and they're they only monolithic foe the west has. You go on and on about how the current American hegemony is unsustainable and how russia is a practical counter balance and that the status quo is changing. But your predictions are all based on the the idea that the current trajectory be is going to be maintained. The idea that no efforts are taken to avoid a China surge to global dominance is stupid. Post-war power and trade relationships and dynamics are entirely unique historically and have as such existed in flux and for a very short period of time. The possibilities are limitless for both China and the US in how they play this game out. But the US will win.
Pillz Member	Sun May 17 11:01:18 And for the record, if it were up to me we'd just recolonize Africa. Expel the Chinese from the continent. And mine it dry. What's China gonna do?
Seb Member	Sun May 17 11:04:27 Pillz: "There'll have to be a swift and readjustment of manufacturing and rem sourcing and associated costs." Yes, for the American market only. The rest of the world will buy the cheapest product. "The idea that no efforts are taken to avoid a China surge to global dominance is stupid." Right now, which country would you rather pin your economy to? The US has elected a lunatic leader who sees trade relationships as a zero sum game and seeks to lock in its trade partners options to trade with alternative partners. It's behaving worse to its trade partners than China is. The country that will win will be the country that can most convince the rest of the world that they will accept a win-win basis, and not insist on capturing all the value in the trade relationship. At the moment, that means China is winning, not the US. Those without an immediate geopolitical stake (i.e. outside South East Asia) have no compelling reason to side with the US. From a business perspective, it's imposing costs on them, and from an ideological perspective America under Trump just looks like a nationalist basket case that's turned it's back on western liberalism - so there is little ideological reason to back the US. Even the UK isn't willing to incur the additional costs of forgoing Chinese hardware despite the potential threat to its security relationship with the US. The US needs new leadership and a new strategy if its going to win this.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 11:06:08 You can pull this "us or them" approach with Iran. It will not work for China as it is the worlds largest exporter. You need a more subtle approach. Instead of forging a common cause with the EU around IP, he opened a trade war on two fronts.
Rugian Member	Sun May 17 11:10:30 Europeans seem to be incapable of realizing that Trump fatigue doesn't make China a reliable partner. China still has to play nice sometimes as it remains a developing country, but as it continues to grow and the balance of power shifts in its favor it will quickly drop the charade. In every situation where China has had the clear upper hand in a relationship with a foreign country, it has acted like an absolute piece of shit. And that's ignoring the ideological angle, since Chinese values are completely irreconcilable to Western liberal democratic ones. That matters when you are talking about a relationship with such a major world player. Hell, the EU has already had to repeatedly censor itself in order to not piss of the CCP: "Europe's diplomatic push to pivot to China amid the coronavirus epidemic has backfired, after an open letter calling for warmer ties with Beijing fell foul of Chinese censors" http://www...-censors-european-union-241900 Bottom line, any European attempt to move away from the US to China is pure histrionics generated by hatred of the orange man.
jergul large member	Sun May 17 11:15:42 Ruggy The solution is simple. Bend the knee to social democratic values and interests. Be reasonable. Otherwise you will force us to engage more deeply with alternate trading partners. Don't make us do that.
Rugian Member	Sun May 17 11:17:09 "Bend the knee to social democratic values and interests. Be reasonable." 1. Already done. 2. You do the bending, Eurofag.
jergul large member	Sun May 17 11:23:02 Ruggy That is not the attitude we are looking for I'm afraid. I think we should opt for balance. Like me. I counterbalanced the rowing machine with 2 nice Huawei P30 pros. Balance helps keep people realize their status has shrunk and their britches are now too big.
Rugian Member	Sun May 17 11:25:37 jergul You are free to opt for balance. No one is forcing you to stay in a relationship that allows for the maintenance of liberal democratic values on your end.
Paramount Member	Sun May 17 12:13:12 Rugian, ” In every situation where China has had the clear upper hand in a relationship with a foreign country, it has acted like an absolute piece of shit. And that's ignoring the ideological angle, since Chinese values are completely irreconcilable to Western liberal democratic ones. ” So China will be the same as the US is under Trump? Seb is right then when he says ”The US needs new leadership and a new strategy if its going to win this.”
Seb Member	Sun May 17 12:31:11 Rugian: The US isn't a reliable trade partner. It rips trade agreements on a whim, applies sanctions aimed to disrupt our relations with third parties, and wants to run a trade surplus in all industries with us. It's not hatred of trump. It's business. And shared ideology wont trump that because Trump demonstrates we don't have a shared ideology.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 12:39:53 The West wins only if it binds China into a global rules based trade relationship. The US abandoned this strategy and went for a winner takes all approach. But if winner takes all, nobody else has an incentive to co-operate. So the EU and others will attempt to maintain relationship with both independently, and the US doesn't ultimately have the clout to force the EU to choose, and if it attempts to use its control over finance through the dollar to force others to, China and the EU will create an alternative mechanism which, thanks to the EUs political and monetary policy deficiencies, may leave China with the edge. The US may realise the strategic error and turn back is policy, but once the new architecture is in place it will never be able to dominate in the way it did in the past as the alternative system will exist in parallel, and nobody will be interested in giving the US the exorbitent priveledge it's held in the post war system back. And without that, America's external debt will be far far more a problem than it is now. This will make China the natural centre, though it's dominance will be less than that of the US in the 90s.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 12:40:57 Bottom line, correcting the Trump error in November is the last opportunity for continuing the US led Western hegemony.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 12:46:14 I would not be entirely surprised if Trump, after reelection, decided to try and default on Chinese held treasury debt "because of Corona virus". I'd hope that's still more unlikely than not. But I bet he's asking why he can't do that already.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 12:52:35 Seb, Your position is that China follows rules?!
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 12:57:21 Seb, That has actually been talked about.China does sort of owe tbe world for this virus and the damage it has caused. If Monsanto had caused this they would be in court. Now it's funny to me that this board bucks the trend with uber hatred of orange man. Most of the world is actually backing away from China at the. Moment. As for the US specifically I think Trumps manufacturing dreams are overblown. I think we should make Mexico our new manufacturer.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 13:06:16 We know the US opinion on China. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-17/what-do-americans-think-of-made-in-china-polling-latest 40% don't want to buy anything from them. And 55% say they are willing to pay more to buy elsewhere. The EU is talking about bannin Chinese takeovers of.companies. http://www....com/article/amp/idUSKBN22S0WR
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 13:08:05 62 natio s led by the EU and Imdia want to investigate China.for covid. http://www...w3ir6VDPywAwLYs5bOVGO_amp.html
Seb Member	Sun May 17 13:10:41 Habebe: My position is that the US regards rules as entirely optional, so for the EU and any other country, there's no particular difference between the two. Both need to be negotiated carefully. For anyone else, a careful consideration on the pros and cons of either should be made, and avoid attempts to be locked into the orbit of one or the other. "China does sort of owe tbe world for this virus and the damage it has caused." Difficult to see how. No country has ever before been held liable for such. It's like trying to sue the US and Russia for cancers attributed to nuclear testing, or for damage the US has done in wars, or for climate change. It's not really going to fly. Everyone knows the next global pandemic could originate in their soil.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 13:11:36 Wanting to know how it happened an ensure it doesn't happen again isn't the same as demanding financial compensation. That's never going to happen.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 13:16:58 Outside of this board and the PRC, most people want to reduce there relations with China. How the world is forming an alliance against China How the world is forming an alliance against China President Xi Jinping wearing a mask visits hospital in Wuhan Photograph:( AFP ) May 15, 2020, 08.47 PM (IST) Many countries across the globe are joining hands against China. They are working as a "collective whole" and have adopted a holistic approach to ensure that China pays for its ill-deeds. The five levers that they are using against China are as follows: First retaliation They are demanding and pushing for a probe into the origin of the coronavirus outbreak and the reason behind its widespread. While Australia was the first country to demand an investigation, it was backed up by its neighbour New Zealand. Meanwhile, the United States is conducting its own investigation. Now, the top diplomat of the European Union wants a probe too. The EU's foreign policy chief has called for an independent and scientific investigation. They will raise this issue during the World health assembly that will be held next week. Second retaliation Countries such as Canada, Japan, France, Germany, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and even Swaziland and Nicaragua have pledged support to Taiwan's membership in the World Health Organization. However, China has slammed these voices of support and threatened these countries. Non-WHO member Taiwan has lobbied for its participation, drawing strong objections from Beijing which considers Taiwan to be one of its provinces. Third retaliation The United States and Japan have started to economically distance itself from China. While the US President Donald Trump has ordered American companies to leave China, Japan has set up a 2.2 billion dollar fund to pull Japanese companies away from the country. Countries in the European Union, Australia and even India have tightened their foreign investment rules to prevent hostile takeovers of local businesses from China. Fourth retaliation They are calling out China for abusing and violating human rights. The US Senate has approved a bill to sanction China over repression of Uighur Muslims in the country. The bill was backed by lawmakers on both sides. Meanwhile, the human rights watch has slammed China for its treatment of Africans. They have released a report this month that talks about discrimination of Africans in China's Guangzhou province. Fifth retaliation Countries are demanding a ban on Chinese technology under which Huawei is the most common target. The United States has already extended its ban on the company for another year and it is pushing other allies to check Chinese tech giants from making inroads. http://www...iance-against-china-298934/amp Even the Chinese know it.As they have internally been discussimg am increasingly hostile world since they infected everyone. There old economic threats hold less water these days, thanks partially to Trump willing to fight back and then now there are so many nations defying them they can't sanction them all.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 13:21:24 Seb, In a legal matter in court it probably won't go anywhere. But public opinion worldwide is such that China will pay in that manner. Morally they are guilty. Again if Monsanto released this virus we would seek legal action. China has sovereign protection as a nation. But that doesnt stop worldwide opinion which will jave huge ramifications.
Paramount Member	Sun May 17 13:59:20 ” But public opinion worldwide is such that China will pay in that manner.” Since after Tiananmen Square, the world has flocked to China to make business. ” Morally they are guilty” Morally, the US is also guilty for a lot things.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 14:03:52 Tiananmen killed Chinese people. Now China is killing Australians, Koreans, Europeans ans Americans. "Morally, the US is also guilty for a lot things." I'm sure it is.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 14:14:32 Habebe: This is full of leaps of logic. 1. Investigations and probes are about public health, not trade and don't affect trade. 2. Supporting Taiwan membership of who, again, not about trade relations. 3. The tightening of controls on foreign investment precedes corona virus, and is more about demanding reciprocal rights and concern over the role of the Chinese state. Again, this doesn't amount to real distancing in trade and supply chains. 4. Human rights, again, not a trade issue, something that's been going on for ages, and matters for trade as much as French and German criticism of Americas conduct in Iraq matters for economic integration between the US and EU. 5. The US is demanding a ban on Huawei, few countries are paying much attention, and those that are are largely payingvlip service. Court of public opinion won't have a huge impact on Chinese power, any more than the US being widely loathed for its various invasions does. Morally, they are guilty of what, exactly? China didn't "release" this virus. It originated in China. This will matter for Chinese power as much as US culpability for climate change. Which is to say, very little absent a unified approach by the rest of the world, which isn't going to happen because the US has made itself untrustworthy to its former alliance of free countries.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 14:16:42 How is China more morally culpable for Corona virus than Guinea is for the 2014 Ebola outbreak?
The Children Member	Sun May 17 14:19:31 hababy is going batshit crazy right now lmao. newsflash, idiot. nobody other than 5 eyes are behind u. the over majority of the world are with china. u fuckin idiot. 5 retaliation? jesus, stop drinkin bleech koolaid, u moron. u do 5 retal on us, we do 10 retal on ur azz, u dumb noob.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 14:43:29 "China didn't "release" this virus. It originated in China." Due to gross negligence. If this was a corperation instead of a country this would be a case of criminal negligence. Now as for trade in general, Germany and the UK are revisiting proposals over Huawei. For whatever reason the EU is trying to ban Chinese corporate take overs. In general there is a world wide backlash against China over this virus, outside of these forums. http://www...ash-china-coronavirus.amp.html As for trade in the future im not pinning thos soley on the virus. There have been plenty of reasons for years to manufacture elsewhere, now there is even more reasons to go elsewhere. With other factors like the rise in other nations with lower labor costs such as India, Mexico and Vietnam and supply chains being disrupted there is plenty of reason to beleive that China will economically suffer for years partially from this event.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 14:43:30 "China didn't "release" this virus. It originated in China." Due to gross negligence. If this was a corperation instead of a country this would be a case of criminal negligence. Now as for trade in general, Germany and the UK are revisiting proposals over Huawei. For whatever reason the EU is trying to ban Chinese corporate take overs. In general there is a world wide backlash against China over this virus, outside of these forums. http://www...ash-china-coronavirus.amp.html As for trade in the future im not pinning thos soley on the virus. There have been plenty of reasons for years to manufacture elsewhere, now there is even more reasons to go elsewhere. With other factors like the rise in other nations with lower labor costs such as India, Mexico and Vietnam and supply chains being disrupted there is plenty of reason to beleive that China will economically suffer for years partially from this event.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 14:43:31 "China didn't "release" this virus. It originated in China." Due to gross negligence. If this was a corperation instead of a country this would be a case of criminal negligence. Now as for trade in general, Germany and the UK are revisiting proposals over Huawei. For whatever reason the EU is trying to ban Chinese corporate take overs. In general there is a world wide backlash against China over this virus, outside of these forums. http://www...ash-china-coronavirus.amp.html As for trade in the future im not pinning thos soley on the virus. There have been plenty of reasons for years to manufacture elsewhere, now there is even more reasons to go elsewhere. With other factors like the rise in other nations with lower labor costs such as India, Mexico and Vietnam and supply chains being disrupted there is plenty of reason to beleive that China will economically suffer for years partially from this event.
The Children Member	Sun May 17 15:01:18 are u as stupid as u sound hababy. no such thing is happenin. ur readin american fakenews. wake the fuck up, u moron.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 15:18:08 Habebe: Gross negligence in what form? "Letting" bats pass a virus to humans? Gross negligence implies a binding form of minimum standards for reckless action. That would apply to, say, climate change. "Now as for trade in general, Germany and the UK are revisiting proposals over Huawei" The UK isn't. Don't know where you are getting that from. "In general there is a world wide backlash against China over this virus, outside of these forums." As there was to the US over the invasion of Iraq, and as with that it is constrained purely to the political dimension. It erodes China's soft power, not it's hard power or economic in power. China remains for most an increasingly indespensible nation, and China is going out of its way to try and foster that. Meanwhile the US attempt to extract maximum value from its economic partners and pushing for unwinding global integration makes itself less indespensible for others and others more determined to reduce dependency. And cultivating China as an alternative is an obvious way to do that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 17 15:34:32 Isn’t allowing the wetmarkets to exist and continue to exist negligent?
The Children Member	Sun May 17 15:36:29 no it is not u fuckface tard. becoz 70% of the world has a form of wet market. this is how the world sells there meat. u got problem than go live in a cave and turn vegan. except ull catch another unknown virus in a cave.
The Children Member	Sun May 17 15:41:02 fuck all u cunts tryin 2 blame china. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIL5ueldRuY but lets say u dunt have a wet market. ur the pinnacle of human civ. u dunt have wet markets u have butcher shops. ok, ok. so heres the question. u dunt have wet markets yet u have corona anywaaaayyyy... how come. looks like it doesnt matter one bit if u have a wet market or not. what matters is strong decisions and measures to stop it. and all asian countries passed. u didnt.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 17 15:41:52 Not if you live in a country with actual food safety standards.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 17 15:43:24 India is famous for being a filthy shithole. So is Pakistan.
The Children Member	Sun May 17 15:53:46 shuddup! so u live in a country with food safety. explain then how madcowdisease was created. idiot
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 17 15:59:34 Madcow disease isn’t a virus, it’s prion. It doesn’t transmit from person to person. The principle difference being that it led to a ban on the feed believed to have been responsible. When is China going to ban the filthy wetmarkets?
The Children Member	Sun May 17 16:03:13 what the fuck are u fuckin shittin us. disease is disease, u fell on ur head?
jergul large member	Sun May 17 16:20:23 "Wet market" is an odd distinction to make. It just means a market area that is hosed down at the end of the day. It is hard for me to imagine a fishmarket that is not a wet market for example. There is nothing inherently unhygenic about it. Meaningful control is actually to strongly regulate wildlife sales for human consumption.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 16:30:57 Seb, "Gross negligence in what form? "Letting" bats pass a virus to humans?" By creating amd allowing such environments as these wet markets.They said they would close them down after the previous pandemic. This is not a problem unique to China. The US factory farms IMO are risky as Well, there is a reason they pump these animals full of anti biotics and do things like chlorinate the chicken meat.If some major pandemic was due to that the US should be held responsible. What is unique to China is the amount of new human viruses its produces by such actions. Its not merely population density as Japan is at least as dense and doesn't crank out plagues like China does. As for the UK, perhaps the article was wrong, but it was mentioned http://www...ash-china-coronavirus.amp.html " Germany and Britain are hesitating anew about inviting in the Chinese tech giant Huawei" The invasion of Iraq was again like Tiananmen, localized, we were not killing Australians, Japanese, Europeans etc. If you think Chinese trade practices are friendlier than US tactics I dont know what to tell you.If Forcing companies to give up proprietary technology just to deal with them isn't bullying, I dont know what is.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 16:32:06 Nim: Where else in the world do these kinds of markets exist? Lots of countries. In any case, bat meat isn't sold there. As I understand it the working theory is it's just where it first spread to a lot of people. I.e. someone infecteded went to the market. Nobody ever suggested tracking down the country that introduced the world to HIV through bushmeat consumption. Most novel diseases are zootropic, there are various vectors for contamination. And I'm fairly sure that nobody wants to set the precedent that just being the origin county of a pandemic makes you liable. Where does that leave you for, e.g. climate change?
Seb Member	Sun May 17 16:34:41 Habebe: The wetmarket wasn't the source, it was the first locus. When did they say they'd close them down? Speaking of AB use in animals, you know this increases the prevalence of superbugs. Can we sue the US as a result? Will the US allow global inspections of its abattoirs to monitor this?
Seb Member	Sun May 17 16:38:36 Re novel diseases, population matters as much as density. I think your article has an editorial bias towards making a narrative. It won't open for me, but a common thing for many news outfits is to link unrelated events to fill out an article. Look for phrases such as "coming after", "in the wake of" and "following" that link two events that may share the same actors, and which do not explicitly state causation but leave that for the reader to infer.
Seb Member	Sun May 17 16:43:51 "If you think Chinese trade practices are friendlier than US tactics" No, buy they generally stick to their word, so when they do agree something, they don't renege. Certainty is what matters. Tech transfers are a major issue, but the Chinese were clear up front about it, and firms chose to transfer tech to gain access to shortv term profits. This is hardly the same as ripping up a trade deal because the other party has a surplus. The EU will continue to push on IPR issues with China, but it's not going to disengage from China over it. Similarly, China is going to continue to push the EU on blocking it's firms from investing and buying EU companies. But note what's happening here: both are pushing to remove barriers to integration. What the EU isn't doing is slapping tariffs on China and blocking tech transfer.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 17 18:16:23 I am not talking about markets that sometimes wet after being washed, but specifically about the ones in Wuhan that keep large quantities and varieties of live wild animals in squalid and unsanitary condition, on top of each. Known to be fertile ground for exactly what we are experiencing and have experiences with both SARS and Avian flu. Turns out I am wrong, China has recently banned farming and eating wild animals, again that is, because they banned in 2003 after SARS. Hopefully they have learned a lesson this time that last a bit longer.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun May 17 18:30:43 "disease is disease" You are correct. Just like dead is dead, it is unimportant if it was murder or suicide. Likewise how a disease came to be and what precautions that were taken after that are also unimportant. Can't argue with stupid.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 19:38:44 "The wetmarket wasn't the source, it was the first locus." Do we know the source then? "When did they say they'd close them down?" I want to say 2012? Iirc. "Speaking of AB use in animals, you know this increases the prevalence of superbugs." I have never heard of over using antibiotics causing a spike in VIRUSES. Also as I said legally we do not have much of a case since nation Vs. Nation cases are usually reserved for the losers aftwr war due to jurisdiction. But we can add soft pressure like sanctions and trade policies to help push for change. The West had always hoped that Chuna would liberalize as it grew economically, instead they've gotten worse and have been propping up technocrats in africa and other third world regimes.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 19:41:40 I typed that earlier and just noticed it didnt send.
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 20:59:14 Back to the original post, China just starts producing there own chips. Probably inferior, but a lot cheaper and it may slow down there 5g rollout but in the long run it also means fewer buyers of our chips. http://amp...illion-local-chip-foundry-smic
Habebe Member	Sun May 17 22:38:02 Seb, As for can we sue the US over factory farms and the overuse of antibiotics. Again legally its probably a no go also. However, I fully support voting with your pocketbook. I would even recommend http://www.crowdcow.com/ Also political pressure should be brought against the US for allowing this, it is risky behaviour that could lead to a different pandemic. This is not an overnight fix of a problem, but reasonable steps if not taken will likely lead to another pandemic, blood that I do not want on my nations hands.
Paramount Member	Mon May 18 00:30:27 ” Do we know the source then? ” That is being discussed in the other thread: lab Weapons
Seb Member	Mon May 18 00:38:35 Habebe: Point I'm making is just selective holding China to account for a novel disease that originated in its soil isn't going to fly. Not least because it will immediately bounce back because of the number of less "act of God" type global issues that the US and others are responsible for. I'm not sure why you think the fact that AB use creates resistant bacteria Vs viruses is a killer argument. I'm not suggesting it's a cause for Corona virus, in pointing out it's another global health issue that causes global deaths. Bottom line, you can try and use sanctions but China's role in global supply chains is past that point. Besides which, the chip issue isn't about pushing for China to clean up its meat markets, it's about trying to prevent Chinas economic growth and move up the value chain, something trump has been doing for long before the Corona virus. Here is my prediction: China will retaliate in more complex ways, it will simply steal the associated IP (no loss, because you weren't going to sell them there anyway) and build its own know-how, and as soon as there's justifiable obfuscation between whats a direct copy Vs improvements based on a stolen IP sufficient to make it a novel product, the rest of the world will start buying those chips too, and Taiwan and the US will lose market share. It will also make Taiwan more vulnerable to invasion as a result. Short termist thinking.
Habebe Member	Mon May 18 01:52:33 Seb, I think we both agree more people world wide are angry with China than before. I think we disagree on the outcomes from that and the duration and scale of that anger. I agree with your prediction that China will make its own chips. I actually posted that with a link stating they are pumping 2 billion into a domestic chip maker. But if you think China hasnt been stealing tech before Idk where youve been. I predict that the Americas in general will ne far less reliant on China going forward, which will hurt China more than the US. I also think that will either learn to be a better world player or suffer. I also think they will have a much tougher time going forward then they have in the past. The chip issue I disagree with Trumps decision on, however he very well may have his reasons that Im unaware of.
Seb Member	Mon May 18 02:12:15 Habebe: I don't know why you think I think China hasn't been stealing tech. In fairness, the US stole British tech in its day when it industrialised. The question is how you get China to agree to limit its development in ways the West never did. What's the quid pro quo? "predict that the Americas in general will ne far less reliant on China going forward, which will hurt China more than the US." Think it through. Why will it hurt China more? They are the global industrial power house, not the US. If you cut them out with export bans, what's their inventive not to copy? And once they manufacture, they rapidly gain the skills to out innovate too. And then why will the rest of the world insist on forgoing cheaper Chinese products in order to give the US rents? So putative US domestic manufacturers are going to be chasing a smaller market at higher cost. The US would need to find manufacturers that are cheaper than China and can scale up faster. But that still means outsourcing jobs unless you can find that magic combination locally. And then how do you stop China buying those up if they are overseas in third countries? There is only one way to address this problem, and it is coordinated global response built around stable international rules and norms and which ensures China has a stake in the rules based system that makes it too costly to walk away from. But the US itself has walked away from this approach. America's attempts to lock China out of global trade and protect IP will be as successful as Britains attempts to do the same to Germany and the US. P You need a different strategy and leadership. And the political fallout from Covid-19 isn't going to fundamentally alter this trajectory.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 18 02:56:12 Seb This is the third time some horrible vector comes out of China. Obviously something other than "there are many Chinese people and thus surface area for the virus to come into contact with" is going on. For years research papers have been warning and predicting Corona virus outbreaks in China and the so called wetmarkets. Do we know 100% it came from a pangolin or a bat in a market? No. Could a person have gotten infected totally unrelated to hunting and selling pangolins or bats? Yes it is possible that some non-bat/pangolin eating Chinese person contracted the virus accidentally stepping in bat shit and then just happened to be at a market infecting other people. Yes, but this is close to, god buried down dinosaur bones to test our faith territory. If you live in an earth quake prone area, you build earth quake proof buildings, if you live in a hurricane prone area, you build shelters. If you live in an area where people hunt every wild animal there is and eat them, you need to regulate that activity, because we know zoonosis is a thing, a thing that can fuck us up real good. >>selective holding China to account for a novel disease that originated in its soil isn't going to fly.<< It is about as selective as holding Israel to a different standard than say Uzbekistan on human rights. I expect better from Israel and I expect better from China, apprently China wants us to not view it as some filthy third world shithole. I am willing to do that, I am taking China seriously. "Not least because it will immediately bounce back because of the number of less "act of God" type global issues that the US and others are responsible for." This may very well point to the limits of the legal system AKA "not what you know, but what you can prove", but obviously this isn't the reality of how we form our opinions about the USA, China or anyone else. OJ Simpson is an example that comes to mind. Stellar lawyering, but still guilty as fuck. The reality is that Covid-19 is the third and worst virus to escape from China, it is negligent at this point. Having said that I in now way support the way Trump has been handling this (how could you really?), but that is a seperate issue that has been entangled with the bigger issue.
Habebe Member	Mon May 18 04:20:16 Seb, Well, in all fairness it was a different world and a different time. That said the Chinese have done it on an unprecedented scale. What's the quid pro quo to get them to clamp down on it? If I knew I'd probably habe a much more important job. As for China being a global industrial power house, you forget that the worlds factory needs a buyer. China manufacturers about 28% of the worlds goods, how much of those goods are bought by the US alone? Now what does China produce that we couldnt get from Mexico, India, Japan, SK, and the EU? We actually trade more with Mexico now than China anyway, andnthatd a place that needs jobs. Regardless of what Trump wants I don't see the US being a self reliant manufacturing nation. But we can buy shit elsewhere. Trump has proven this actually. Before many of his tarriffs people warned of huge price spikes and shortages etc. And what happened? Mexico and Vietnam stepped up. It reminds me of the largest heroin bust in the world. Within 3 days everything was back to normal prices again, the market is quick. You speak of trajectory, but China has had phenomenal growth mostly came from playing catch up with the rest of the world. They likely will innovate, but I don't know that it is guaranteed as you suggest, it's a little odd they are not more innovative now tbh. As it stands now Mexican labor is cheaper than Chinese, and for us much closer and more reliable. Why would people pay more to buy from China? Covid is just gas on the fire. "There is only one way to address this problem, and it is coordinated global response built around stable international rules and norms and which ensures China has a stake in the rules based system that makes it too costly to walk away from. But the US itself has walked away from this approach." When your playing poker with people cheating what do you? Rob the table. China for decades has thwarted these rules from.pegging currency, to stealing, to straight up copying an Apple store and streaming a corperations identity. So should we continue to do the same shit that hasn't worked? The China factor is in the US probably the single largest boon for Trump politically. Theyve been screwing us for years, so we called in a ringer, nobody screws people like Trump.
Seb Member	Mon May 18 04:41:15 Nimatzo: MERS in the middle east, Ebola and Zika in Africa. About a quarter and a third of the worlds population live in China and South East Asia, and China is about a sixth, and full of high density cities. That's *why* papers predict China: not so much that their practices are unique, but their intrinsic conditions are near optimal. "It is about as selective as holding Israel to a different standard" Which country was held liable for Ebola? For Zika? For HIV? For the rise of multiply AB resistant bacteria? US food and animal hygiene standards are terrible, and their use of AB widely (and for rapid growth promotion) a major contribution, and unlike this pandemic, a far more direct causal link to something that can be attributed to policy.
jergul large member	Mon May 18 04:42:52 The US also robbed Germany blind after wwii. The space programme is the most famous benifactor, but any German patent was expropriated to the US. Its was the pharmaceudical and petrochemical stuff that mattered. habebe The world does indeed need buyers. The US is not a good candidate. You have already maxed out your credit by any reasonable measure. The Chinese are still screwing you as much as they ever have btw.
Seb Member	Mon May 18 04:52:46 Habebe: "A different place and a different time" is just "we get to develop by IP theft, you don't". The Chinese retort is "no, is the established path for industrialisation". "for China being a global industrial power house, you forget that the worlds factory needs a buyer." Yup, but the US isn't the worlds largest market. The EU is, and the developing world is increasingly important, as is China's internal market. So if the US wants to use access to demand as a lever, that's precisely why it needs to have a unified approach. But in every relationship, the US is seeking to capture all the value and launching trade wars and undermining it's credibility as a partner by ripping up treaties. The US using its demand independently isn't going to work. And good luck cultivating alternative manufacturing hubs. China is already doing this in Africa, with itself as the assembly point. Any country looking to get into bed will have one eye on what happened with NAFTA: if you actually start to benefit from it, a future US President will come along and rewrite it insisting on no trade surplus in goods. The morality of it is secondary to the blunt reality: at strategy, China is outplaying the US badly, and US is attempting strategies that worked in the 50s but won't work in the current context.
Seb Member	Mon May 18 06:28:50 Habebe, let's be clear what's happening here. The US is targeting China's leading technology success through multiple fronts across the global economy. Huwawei is an example of Chinese innovation. But instead of pointing to this and saying "look, you don't need to steal our IP", Trump has gone all guns to try and destroy it. This is like China pursuing a trade dispute by setting out to destroy Apple by any means necessary. The message many countries are getting from this is not "get China to accept more restrictive global regulation", the message they are getting is "the US doesn't accept global regulation either, and won't accept other countries getting to the top of the value chain. The take away then is "who needs IP laws anyway, let's just buy the best value". Under those circumstances, China wins. It invests heavily in the next manufacturing cluster but rather than using IP, uses other mechanisms to prevent it being usurped. For America, it's too late.
jergul large member	Mon May 18 06:41:57 Huawei revenue went up from 101 billion in 2018 to 128 billion in 2019, so even a targeted attempt to destroy a specific company is failing. All it is doing is putting a third contender onstage alongside android and iphone.
Seb Member	Mon May 18 09:53:46 jergul: Yes, because Trump's strategy isn't built around a sensible understanding of the value chain. It's pretty clear that their points of attack are fairly weak to date and more likely to encourage Huwawei to move into spaces that so far they haven't needed/wanted to but once the cost of doing so is largely sunk anyway, they will be forced to move into them, to the disadvantage of western firms. BTW, did you ever look into wardley mapping? There's a lot more about it online.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 18 10:04:24 Seb Is sub-sahara Africa the benchmark which China wants to be compared to? Judging by repeated regulations the answer is no, it looks like China sees the risks and the cost to their own reputation. All the things you mention are just more reasons why Chins should have taken this more seriously. Ebola, MERS, zika and HIV are nothing in comparison to what we are going through, that’s the thing with negligence and even criminal negligence, you can get lucky with how much (little) damage you cause. Despite that, what effect has HIV had on the reputation of sub-saharan Africa? Not good. That is the cost of this liability.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 18 10:14:22 ”but their intrinsic conditions are near optimal” In Japan the intrinsic conditions are optimal for earth quakes, the entire world was shaking it’s head at Japan over Fukushima and Japan was hanging its’ head in shame. This is what I mean, the conditions are reasons for taking something already serious even more serious, not less.
The Children Member	Mon May 18 12:34:59 gaymatzo thinks ebola, mers, zika and hiv are nottin compared to a glorified FLU which is corona!!! THIS MOTHERFUCKER LOST HIS GAY MIND! away with u, moron
jergul large member	Mon May 18 12:38:28 Seb I am familiar with it. A memory map for supply chains :). Nimi The only company to benefit in a big way is Xiaomi. On the matter of covid-19. Disease control everwhere is at local government levels. In Sweden and Norway is is a municipal level (kommune). Local government in wuhan did what local governments often do. Fail to understand the scope and remain unwilling to paralyze their local economy. Central authorities took over the show and have acted with textbook efficiency (in an epidemic, not human rights sense) since that time. Mea Culpa is a bad idea in the current political environment. Any admission will be exploited ruthlessly by the orange troll seeking re-election.
Seb Member	Mon May 18 12:59:46 Nimatzo: I certainly don't think it intends to be held liable for a particular instance of a phenomenon where it would be unique in history. China is probably self confident enough that it really doesn't care what the West thinks and world find it laughable when the US animal safety process involves eliminating the most powerful medicines in the world.
Seb Member	Mon May 18 13:01:51 Nim: "Ebola, MERS, zika and HIV are nothing in comparison to what we are going through" So? You are saying liability is about the scale of the event, not the nature of the event. This is a novel approach. Antibiotic resistance will kill far more than corona virus, just over a much longer period. Jergul: Looks like that, but much much more powerful.
jergul large member	Mon May 18 14:54:30 Habebe And what is up with this singular focus anyway? Russia and SA destroyed US oil industry and they get a pass?
jergul large member	Mon May 18 14:55:50 http://ycharts.com/indicators/us_oil_rotary_rigs
Habebe Member	Mon May 18 21:01:45 Seb, "A different place and a different time" is just "we get to develop by IP theft, you don't" Should we look the other way then if they enslave Africans as well because were talking about the same time frame. Also if it was such an issue with Britain about US piracy I'm sure they would do something about it. "Yup, but the US isn't the worlds largest market. The EU is, and the developing world is increasingly important, as is China's internal market." They probably are a bit bigger, but about the same size. And thats fine, the EU can rely heavier on China if it chooses to do so. The US finds it dangerous and most Americans would rather pay more to not buy from China. I personally have been a fan of helping Mexico take on a bigger role for manufacturing goods for the US.Its a win win situation. China has lost a shit load in Africa. Even China realizes that the world is going to be more scrutinizing of it going forward.I get the Euro view " orange man bad" Its funny the interviews with regular people I see on DW news and there ignotrance of US politics though. Its almost as bad as US ignorance on EU.I uses to. I guess only time will tell on which strategies work out better. Back to the Covid argument, I still think there will be more public opinion against China for this and you apparently do not. We agree on US factory farms though, bad risky behaviour that needs addressing ASAP.
jergul large member	Tue May 19 00:20:07 Sure there will be tons of outrage in certain bubbles. Nothing is easier to manufacture. Too bad you can't include outrage production as part of your industrial sector gdp. It would do wonders for your sector balance (your service sector fraction right now is at about the level most countries have in normal times).
jergul large member	Tue May 19 00:22:50 Now, what about harsh, punitive sanctions on Saudi Arabia for attacking and destroying your oil production industry in addition to blatant human rights abuses at home and abroad? Singling Huawei on chickenshit charges of dubious merit seems arbitrary.
Habebe Member	Tue May 19 02:05:55 Saudis Arabia at least works on getting less horrible. China actively tries to be worse.Its like they are the anti Google, instead of " dont be evil" the China versions " Just be evil" Everyone else as time goes on liberalized, allows more freedoms in general. China installed software to tracknypur everymove and rate it on a scale and tries to set up other authpritarian regomes with such technocracies. Like just try, I dont ask for perfection, just progress.
jergul large member	Tue May 19 03:15:24 They began their attack on your oil industry a few months ago and the attack is still ongoing as the link to your oil rig count implosion shows. You are attacking Huawei because of Chinese human rights issues. That is your new tagline? It looks incredibly arbitrary and seems to serve only Trump's idea of how to get re-elected.
Seb Member	Tue May 19 03:44:32 Habebe: There's a marked difference between a norm based on human dignity, and a norm invented to extract rent. In any case, the comparison isn't apt. The US and Germany resisted any attempt to accept UK patents, and slavery was known to be morally wrong at the time, but justified by bogus arguments based on religion (bringing them to God, being the sons of Cain, being subhuman etc). As the US and Germany and the rest of the world industrialised and developed IP of their own, they came to see the value of intellectual property laws themselves. But it's hard to see how you could elevate this to a universal principle when in fact it is a mechanism that aims to thwart other developing. You clearly don't get the view "orange man bad" isn't it. The EU looks at trumps approach to NAFTA (and the Iran deal) and realises that when America signs a treaty, America doesn't view it as something to abide by. It can and will be ripped up and discarded trivially. America doesn't care about keeping its word. And if that's the case, there's no possibility of a partnership because the benefits come from certainty. They look at China and see a potential threat, for sure, but so far once you get China to agree to something, they abide by it. Effort spent negotiating with America is wasted. America will do what America will do. Concessions made to America in a negotiation are pointless: they'll bank them and the next president will rip up whatever benefits you thought you'd secured them up, and the courts and Congress and the electorate will shrug. So the focus will be on negotiating with China. How do we get them to agree to things and how do we ensure they are held to account to abide by the agreement. The hating trump specifically is only relevant when Rugian etc wheels out the idea that because China is totalitarian, the EU should back the US. Well unfortunately the EU looks at Trump as only one element of the US, a symptom of a divergence in values. It comes on top of two decades of rejecting multilateralism for unilateralism and exceptionalism. The EU believes in a world governed by norms and adherence to rule of international law agreed through treaties. The US believes in a world governed by untrammelled sovereignty, and that has now reached its apotheosis in trump where Americans apparently think that breaking declared commitments should be regarded as perfectly normal behaviour because sovereignty. Well, ok, but that makes you impossible to collaborate with. Even on shared threats (like Iran) because once we have achieved an agreed aim, in 4 years the US will come along, rip it all up again, rexposing a risk that we'd all agreed was contained and managed. In international relationships, consistency and trustworthiness matter. Raw power can be a substitute, but the US is overestimating it's trade and military power at the moment. It gives you enormous latitude, but not this much.
Habebe Member	Tue May 19 04:26:40 Jergul, " You are attacking Huawei because of Chinese human rights issues. That is your new tagline?" What? Where did I say this? You brought up the comparison of Chi ere Vs. SA human rights. Seb, " In any case, the comparison isn't apt. The US and Germany resisted any attempt to accept UK patents, and slavery was known to be morally wrong at the time, but justified by bogus arguments based on religion (bringing them to God, being the sons of Cain, being subhuman etc" Just like Simpsons directors added a slew of Russian symphonies since the US and Russia for a while did not accept the others copyrights. What China does is legally claim they accept IP and than steal everything under the sun. They literally copied an Apple store with employees etc. Now the excuse you claim exonerates them of wrongdoing here is that the US did something sort of similar 200 years ago. Your claim is that they are still industrialising. But you also call them a manufacturing powerhouse. Well which is it? If they are a manufacturing powerhouse the need to steal IP to get off the ground should be over. At what point should it be dealt with. As for NAFTA, your claim is that Europe sees the US as not sticking to its word in trade agreements because after 30 years we renegotiated it and SLIGHTLY changed it. Literally, we increased yhe amount of US steel required for cars made in NA. We added wage hikes for Mexican workers. And Canada agreed to buy more US dairy products. After 30 years. But you would rather deal with the "manufacturing powerhouse" that steals IP because it needs.to.be able to manufacture MORE? Your reasoning is that they stick to there word. However we literally just discussed how they claim to protect IP and encourage its theft. You as a Brit should notice how they reneged on Hong Kong. A nation when They allowed covid 19 to spread due to lax regulation And negligence then tried to cover it up anf sanctioned the whistleblower. *Who then died of the disease*
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue May 19 04:40:23 Jergul That is a reaction, what I am talking about is being proactive when clearly risks have been known for decades. Seb I won't get into a bigger discussion about China here, what it laughs at or not. What I know is that they have banned this activity in the past and has done so again. From my POV China is harmonizing their legislation on the area to match civilized level. They need to do that to reduce the risks, considering that many of these animals are know reservoirs for Corona virii and who knows what else. I am saying, the scale of the damage you inflict is, atleast in legal terms, the difference between attempted murder and murder. So yes, the extent of the damage matters just like the nature of the event matters.
Habebe Member	Tue May 19 04:40:28 And again, outside this forum I dont think most Euros habe neay the rosy view of China that posters in these forums do,ven relating to trade. http://eutoday.net/news/business-economy/2020/boycott-china EUToday Poll: 61.9% of respondents would support Boycott of Chinese goods This is a common sentiment in the US as well which posted earlier and also in India, Japan, SK and Australia. People want to do less.bisiness with China unless it shapes up. The US has its problems with how we are viewed worldwide. Especially in Europe which is politically on the opposite end of the spectrum as the US leadership at the moment. Y'all sure loved Obama though.So thats something.
	show deleted posts