Political Posts

[Luke]

3 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Munger’s investment is BABA is one I could never understand as it seemed entirely at odds with his philosophy on life.

 

Apologies for mis-ID’ing you.  Thought you were Chinese.

 

Wasnt Munger always fascinated about China and their work ethic, fascinated by BYD too...fascinated by Li Lu, had large portions of family wealth invested in Asia and bought a LOT of Baba for his own family besides for DJCO...

[Sweet]

1 minute ago, Luca said:

Wasnt Munger always fascinated about China and their work ethic, fascinated by BYD too...fascinated by Li Lu, had large portions of family wealth invested in Asia and bought a LOT of Baba for his own family besides for DJCO...

Sure, and he is right, they are one of the oldest civilisations in the world, the people are dedicated and hard working.  However munger based a lot of things on trust and morals and whilst I think the ordinary Chinese people have that in buckets, I find the domination of their country by a single party and one man immoral, and I don’t trust the party or its leader.

[John Hjorth]

Please go somewhere else for discission of US sealed border.

[Sweet]

4 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

Please go somewhere else for discission of US sealed border.

It’s been connected to the funding of Ukraine John.

[cubsfan]

57 minutes ago, Sweet said:

It’s been connected to the funding of Ukraine John.

 

It's definitely THE major impediment to funding the war from the US perspective.

[changegonnacome]

4 hours ago, cubsfan said:

It's definitely THE major impediment to funding the war from the US perspective.

It’s the currentl impediment….the REAL impediment is that it just doesn’t matter that much to the US strategically and US voters politically. It therefore will remain a political football and if the fiscal situation ever became a problem it’s clear it would become an easy budget cut for the party of the day (assuming a funding package ever gets done)

 

The mistake in Ukraine was to get into a fight with an opponent who’d happily lose an eye to win (Russia)…..when deep down we knew we’d bail after breaking a nail.
 

You just don’t win fights or proxy flights like this even if your the global superpower…..resolve & persistence are the most underrated military hardware….before you start counting tanks and artillery of your opponent…asking the simple question around for whom this matters more is an excellent go/no go…..I’d posit that unless a strategic victory of some sort can be swiftly swiftly achieved…any great power should not enter a conflict for ten minutes that they wouldn’t be happy to be involved in for 10yrs (to mangle a buffetism)…that simple rule would have saved the US from countless misadventures since WWII.

[ValueArb]

On 4/10/2024 at 9:26 AM, John Hjorth said:

Please go somewhere else for discission of US sealed border.

 

I'm very sorry it became a topic on the thread. It should have nothing to do with Ukraine but unfortunately its the reason the US is dropping the ball on our commitments. And unfortunately it can't be solved until after the election since certain politicians don't want to give a PR win to certain other politicians before it.

 

I'm hoping Europe and UK will pick up the slack until we regain our senses.

[Luke]

https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3258812/chinas-stock-market-beijing-issues-unprecedented-guidelines-calling-transparency-risk-management?module=top_story&pgtype=homepage

 

China has issued an unprecedented set of policy guidelines to push for transparency, security, risk-management and vibrancy in the country’s US$9 trillion stock market, sketching out a view of what the world’s second-largest capital market could look like by the middle of the century as Beijing solidifies its goal of becoming a financial superpower.

 

The document released by the State Council after the markets closed on Friday evening sets out nine guidelines that formulate a framework to develop the market, demanding a better mechanism for protecting investors’ interests and an improvement in the quality of listed companies over the next five years.

 

By 2035, the market should have achieved “a reasonable structure of investing and fundraising” in which listed companies will have demonstrated a significant improvement in quality, it said. There must also be demonstrable progress in cultivating first-class investment banks and financial institutions.

 

The push highlights the fact China’s state support for its stock market has entered a new stage, with some of the supportive measures proposed by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) now being written into the State Council’s documents. It is rare for China’s cabinet to issue documents directly targeting the stock market, with the two previous such occasions occurring in 2004 and 2014, both preceding a raging bull market.

 

Friday’s guidelines complement four documents issued last month by the CSRC pledging to crack down on fraudulent listings, raise the threshold for new listings and require publicly traded companies to return more to investors through buy-backs and dividend payouts.

 

According to the document published today, companies will be required to disclose their dividend payout policies when they list, and stricter rules on information disclosure and corporate governance will be implemented to restrict stake reductions by major shareholders and push listed companies to boost investment value.

 

The regulators will also work out standards for abnormal trading and manipulation, issue rules to strengthen the supervision of high-frequency transactions, and mete out severe punishments in cases of malicious manipulation and short-selling, it said.

 

The document also called for the fast-track approval of exchange-traded funds, the expansion of index-based funds, and a higher proportion of stock-focused funds in the mutual fund industry.

[WFF]

On 4/10/2024 at 11:38 PM, Sweet said:

Apologies for mis-ID’ing you.  Thought you were Chinese.

I was actually thinking the same thing too.   It is actually quite rare to see a westerner being so pro China. 
 

My two cents as an ABC who has lived in China and the US (also in SEA),  media biases is rampant. No one system is better than another.

 

I have had discussions with people that privately question whether democracy really a good thing?  Should everyone really have a vote, because a lot of people can’t be hold accountable for their vote. 
 

At the same time in China, the bias against the Japanese is also overblown.  A lot Chinese executives are using Japan as a case study to learn and adapt.  For example both society have a strong Confucius culture, focus on education, high savings, etc.  They are in awe at times.  

 

Li Lu in his book summed it up quite well regarding biases (TLDR : Civilization formation paths).  
 

I like China and I like the US, I don’t think it has to be winner and losers and they can both win.   Though,  a lot of negativity is because the current free trade situation did not result in win-win, but win-lose.  Robert Koo explains it, which really challenges a lot of shortcuts (ie. free trade is good), that has given me food for thought on a lot of trained beliefs.  

Anyway not trying to start a debate or discuss politics. Just want to share my two cents.  

[Jaygo]

I kind of have to give it to Luca here. The CCP is regulating for the Chinese's populace, the US and Canada i'm not so sure.

 

In Canada i'm regulated to shit but it never seems to be regulation in my best interest. Its more about protecting an industry or organization. 

 

A quick example would be a playground at my kids school. I have a quote for $ 82,000.00 from a school approved vendor. I can buy the exact ( exact! ) same structure on Alibaba for $ 11,000 including shipping. I could put it up for another 5-10k max. It requires 18 post holes with cement and then assembly.

 

The board has indicated that it must be a board certified vendor and the playground needs to be certified. Ok so lets just assume the board is concerned with safety of the kids.( yeah no shit, they are my kids and their friends) why not allow other vendors to be allowed into the bidding process. The structure is coming from China, getting a certification plate in canada and then the vendor is making 60 k in a week or less.  

 

The end results of most regulation in NA is to reduce competition and protect incumbents inmo, not to protect our youth who are dumbing at an alarming rate or to protect our heath and best interests. 

 

Having never gone to China i am not totally sure but most Chinese i know are kind hearted in general , a bit rude and pushy especially if a lineup or free stuff is involved, mostly peaceful and very hardworking. All together pretty damn good people just like everyone else.

[cubsfan]

2 hours ago, WFF said:

 

I have had discussions with people that privately question whether democracy really a good thing?  Should everyone really have a vote, because a lot of people can’t be hold accountable for their vote. 

 

Of course democracy is a good thing!  IT's a great thing. It's far from perfect. It's not free. And it always has to be worked on - why would a great thing like democracy be easy??

 

To take a vote or a voice away from anyone is a grave injustice.  And like the views of the communists - when you start thinking your voice is more important than others - you're headed to totalitarianism.

[james22]

6 hours ago, WFF said:

I have had discussions with people that privately question whether democracy really a good thing?  Should everyone really have a vote, because a lot of people can’t be hold accountable for their vote.

 

Yeesh.

[Luke]

13 hours ago, cubsfan said:

Of course democracy is a good thing!  IT's a great thing. It's far from perfect. It's not free. And it always has to be worked on - why would a great thing like democracy be easy??

 

To take a vote or a voice away from anyone is a grave injustice.  And like the views of the communists - when you start thinking your voice is more important than others - you're headed to totalitarianism.

A philosopher king leader party who enables superb outcomes is IMO preferred compared to a flawed democracy that enables inferior outcomes. Outcomes matter the most, not the process towards the outcomes. 

 

Also, democracies run into the threat of becoming capital oligarchies as can be seen in the west, the government is sold to the highest bidder with the deepest pockets and the economy stalls in benefit to the very wealthy. This is an edge the CCP has and why the West is so afraid of them. China will and does have a more competitive and more efficient industrial system, that can produce products for cheaper because public infrastructure is not privatized and monopolized by the financial sector but belongs to the government, banks, energy etc. They are turning more towards SOE owned key infrastructure because they see that the financial sector just wants to monopolize these assets which makes them a lot of money but labor suffers making the overall economy less efficient. Musk said it already, China is a powerhouse next level and nobody can beat them, energy will be a lot cheaper, factories are all next to each other, short supply chains, huge talent pool etc. 

 

So who will be happier, the person living in an almost fully automated, highly technological very wealthy society that cares about lifting everybody up in the "navel of the earth" or the highly privatized deindustrialized society that belongs to the financial, insurance and real estate sector that owns the government and monopolies stalling overall growth and development? 

Edited April 13, 2024 by Luca

[Luke]

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/trends-in-income-inequality-and-its-impact-on-economic-growth_5jxrjncwxv6j-en

 

It follows that policies to reduce income inequalities should not only be pursued to improve social outcomes but also to sustain long-term growth. Redistribution policies via taxes and transfers are a key tool to ensure the benefits of growth are more broadly distributed and the results suggest they need not be expected to undermine growth. But it is also important to promote equality of opportunity in access to and quality of education. This implies a focus on families with children and youths – as this is when decisions about human capital accumulation are made -- promoting employment for disadvantaged groups through active labour market policies, childcare supports and in-work benefits.

[Luke]

Just now, Luca said:

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/trends-in-income-inequality-and-its-impact-on-economic-growth_5jxrjncwxv6j-en

 

It follows that policies to reduce income inequalities should not only be pursued to improve social outcomes but also to sustain long-term growth. Redistribution policies via taxes and transfers are a key tool to ensure the benefits of growth are more broadly distributed and the results suggest they need not be expected to undermine growth. But it is also important to promote equality of opportunity in access to and quality of education. This implies a focus on families with children and youths – as this is when decisions about human capital accumulation are made -- promoting employment for disadvantaged groups through active labour market policies, childcare supports and in-work benefits.

China follows basic economic research by OECD policy advise to generate MORE growth for their overall economy but LESS growth for monopolies and concentrated markets. But nobody wants any redistribution in the US and both republic. and democr. basically run the same elite clientele political program, ruin the power of labor, don't regulate monopolies and concentrated markets, sell essential infrastructure to private companies that charge a lot and make their donors rich. Fair enough! 

 

Then China engages in the opposite policies which makes them stronger, their businesses stronger and the West and their elite hate it of course. 

 

For the average labor worker, this should not be of any concern but the media sector manipulates everybody to believe this is their concern too although it again only affects less than 5% of the population. 

 

They can hit china with as much tariffs as they want but they will cut their life supply off since they factories are not in their home countries. Yes, maybe they can reestablish colonies in India or other SEA countries and maybe they will obey the US and don't develop themselves so that's maybe a bet. Still, China is already far enough to be self-sufficient in their own country and their partners are also very wealthy with resources. Russia did the right move, nothing to gain with Europe and US, better focus on China. It will be interesting how India will behave, the best would be to stay very neutral and take the best of both worlds while driving their own high-quality development. 

 

Very interesting times, Xi is right to say that there are changes happening not seen in 100 years: 

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/22/xi-tells-putin-of-changes-not-seen-for-100

 

 

 

[Luke]

Interestingly, Putin was also not the neoliberal subservient cog the Russian and US oligarchs thought he would be, he has the russian billionaires under tight control and they are afraid of him, we will see what happens with russia but I wouldn't count them out, especially now with close ties to China. Maybe with china they can accelerate a new form of growth too the coming decades although putin is getting old and maybe after the new guy is up they reorientate themselves, US will 100% follow that closely and fund US supportive governments there as we all know. 

[Luke]

3 minutes ago, Luca said:

For the average labor worker, this should not be of any concern but the media sector manipulates everybody to believe this is their concern too although it again only affects less than 5% of the population. 

The 70% bottom of the barrel workers who own almost nothing, have mostly debt and maybe a few bucks in a mutual fund will make the same under a Chinese burger king and will also have to pay in the Chinese amazon bottles. The only thing that matters is the people who own the bonds, equity/shares in those companies that will lose wealth, of course the media only focusses on what matters to them...

[Luke]

So if you have a huge amount of money invested in US stocks then you need the US favored policies, obviously since i invested in china i am also betting on their horse

[Sweet]

19 hours ago, WFF said:

I have had discussions with people that privately question whether democracy really a good thing?  Should everyone really have a vote, because a lot of people can’t be hold accountable for their vote. 

These types of discussions involve much wishful thinking, turning a blind eye to the actions of non-democratic nations, or reading history with blind folds on.

There are things Democratic nations could do better or are weak at.  However theorising about what system is better is simplistic.

 

There are many different types of governments and leadership throughout history such and I think we can reasonably infer what outcome we can expect from a particular type of government.
 

So instead of theory it’s better to look at the data and simply ask ‘compared to what?’  If you think x is better compared to y - OK, what does the data say.

 

Edited April 13, 2024 by Sweet

[Sweet]

7 hours ago, Luca said:

A philosopher king leader party who enables superb outcomes is IMO preferred compared to a flawed democracy that enables inferior outcomes. Outcomes matter the most, not the process towards the outcomes. 

 

Also, democracies run into the threat of becoming capital oligarchies as can be seen in the west, the government is sold to the highest bidder with the deepest pockets and the economy stalls in benefit to the very wealthy.

The problem is too often your philosopher king morphs into a tyrant king and there is no way to get him out.  
 

Being able to choose your leader and the rules you want to live by is is an outcome too, the most important one arguably, and it’s flipping important one in the long run.  
 

Democracies can select the ideas and people which govern them, in your alternative you can’t.  That is why in the long run democracies have produced better outcomes on the whole, because it’s an open competition of ideas.

 

Your idea that the West have ‘capital oligarchies’ is not something I recognise.  Please evidence it.

 

Edited April 13, 2024 by Sweet

[Ulti]

I think the whole argument boils down to having a government system with plenty of checks and balances ; where power is not centralized and the rights of the people are paramount.

 

https://www.learnancientrome.com/what-were-checks-and-balances-in-ancient-rome/

[Hektor]

1 hour ago, Sweet said:

The problem is too often your philosopher king morphs into a tyrant king and there is no way to get him out.  
 

Being able to choose your leader and the rules you want to live by is is an outcome too, the most important one arguable, and it’s flipping important one in the long run.  
 

Democracies can select the ideas and people who government them, in your alternative you can’t.  That is why in the long run democracies have produced better outcomes on the whole, because it’s an open competition of ideas.

+1

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, Ulti said:

I think the whole argument boils down to having a government system with plenty of checks and balances ; where power is not centralized and the rights of the people are paramount.

 

https://www.learnancientrome.com/what-were-checks-and-balances-in-ancient-rome/

 

^^^ This.  I'm amazed how Luca likes to gaslight us on how wonderful China is. Especially now that a tyrant has assumed control once again. There are more people that live in poverty in China than live in the entire United States.

 

China is an economic miracle after the killing 60 million of their own citizens through totalitarianism. Now of course, they are drifting backward again.

 

I see no Westerners rushing to go back to China and live after the horrible recent crackdown and suspension of liberties the last few years. President Xi will have to go to extraordinary lengths to attract Westerners again.  Not impossible, but difficult.

[Luke]

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

The problem is too often your philosopher king morphs into a tyrant king and there is no way to get him out.

In fact that happens in capitalistic "democratic" systems where the ruler just buys himself the government. 

3 hours ago, Sweet said:

Being able to choose your leader and the rules you want to live by is is an outcome too, the most important one arguably, and it’s flipping important one in the long run.  

Democracies can select the ideas and people who government them, in your alternative you can’t.  That is why in the long run democracies have produced better outcomes on the whole, because it’s an open competition of ideas.

 

Your idea that the West have ‘capital oligarchies’ is not something I recognise.  Please evidence it.

Attached you find a well researched presenting you the flaws: 

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B#

[Luke]

24 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

^^^ This.  I'm amazed how Luca likes to gaslight us on how wonderful China is. Especially now that a tyrant has assumed control once again. There are more people that live in poverty in China than live in the entire United States.

Because they industrialized a lot later, rural development is very important to the CCP as visible by their releases and Xis talking. 

24 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

China is an economic miracle after the killing 60 million of their own citizens through totalitarianism. Now of course, they are drifting backward again.

Yadda yadda yadda, you could make similar comments about the US killing the natives or Germany with the nazis, every country has dark sides.

24 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

I see no Westerners rushing to go back to China and live after the horrible recent crackdown and suspension of liberties the last few years. President Xi will have to go to extraordinary lengths to attract Westerners again.  Not impossible, but difficult.

Okay, people want to leave China, they wont develop etc its over we all know it.