China

[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. 

[Luke]

I will stop posting in this thread from now on, I have written about 400 posts about why I think the view on China is not accurate and why that creates an investing opportunity, it's the same people commenting and disagreeing over and over again and calling me gaslighting, having an agenda etc, at this point our views are clear. I also think the board has pretty much no interest in China as an investing opportunity. 

 

My differing view has been made clear over many posts and I am repeating myself, others can post more about why they think China is going to shit etc and you will get more space for your opinions. 

 

 

[cubsfan]

Most of us understand the actual threat that China is to its neighbors and the West.

 

Concentration camps for Muslims, producing/killing millions with fentanyl, destroying Hong Kong, threatening Taiwan, wrecking economies by releasing killer viruses (accidentally or not), etc.

 

The bloom is off the China rose - I for one, will be happy when China decides to be a good neighbor instead of an expansionary power.  They are clearly a global threat that needs to be held in check.

 

President Xi has taken the country in a new direction - and that is sad.

[Ulti]

26 minutes ago, Luca said:

My differing view has been made clear over many posts

Personally , I enjoy reading your differing view...Its what makes the world go around...As for investing in China, I'm always trying to learn.

https://www.nbim.no/en/publications/podcast/alibaba-co-founder-and-chair-china-jack-ma-ai-and-baseball/

[james22]

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.

 

Yeesh.

[Ulti]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosopher-king

[Sweet]

5 hours ago, Hektor said:

+1

I really need to proofread my posts a lot more.  How you managed to understand what I meant with all those errors I’ve no idea lol.  Edited the original.

 

Edited April 13, 2024 by Sweet

[SharperDingaan]

On 4/13/2024 at 10:16 AM, Luca said:

I will stop posting in this thread from now on.

 

There is nothing wrong with dissenting opinion, and it is to be encouraged; but there's also reality.

 

China is a communist country, and for the western investor, property rights are about 'might is right'. You have them only while China needs the West more than the West needs China, after that .... not so much. If you were unsure of that, look no further than both Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

 

Participation also doesn't mean investment in China. China is well known for over-developing mines in 3rd world countries, and using the resultant surplus global over supply to force down the commodities price for decades. When the host nation objects, the mine and rail/port labour is simply replaced with expats and the commodity proceeds processed through the Chinese banking system. Object some more, and you're replaced with civil war. Age-old fair game .... but it's the real meaning of 'belt and road'. 

• However; every former Colonial Power has learnt the hard way, that eventually the natives take back the assets, and the asset strip is a time limited engagement. Changing the face of the colonialist doesn't change the eventual end-game. It eventually catches up. 

China has made amazing progress over the decades, but it's been very much along the failed 'Asian Tiger' model. Same as Japan; burn the population pyramid to do it, finance it with extraordinary credit expansion, and allow the wealth to build up in highly leveraged real estate. Thing is ... you run out of babies 'cause everyone is working stupid hours, the real estate depends on ongoing ability to repay, and the whole thing tanks when the increasingly limited Chinese labour pool eventually ages out. As with Japan, interest rates plummet/stay there for years, and the whole world exploits the dirt cheap money. Do you really want to be the lender in this, or would you much rather be the borrower?

 

Then add to it the dictators playbook; when things aren't going well at home, distract attention by 'creating an enemy' that everyone can be rallied around .... and in a communist country, there is only one 'leader'. If you're going to take this kind of risk, there are a great many other places with better returns/unit risk in which to do it.

 

Not what many want to hear.

 

SD

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2024 by SharperDingaan

[Sweet]

4 hours ago, Luca said:

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

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#

Luca, respectfully, I don’t know what you are talking about.  ‘Buys the government’ - really?  In the US there is undoubtedly too much money in politics, way too much, but ‘buy the government’ - I don’t see that.

 

There have been several rebuttals of that paper which I could find online which argue the analysis and conclusions are flawed.  
 

Nevertheless I agree with the paper that rich influential people have an outsized impact on government policy, that is obvious, but that’s far away from saying it’s a capitalist oligarchy.  The money and lobbying in the US does need addressed.
 

I disagree that ordinary people have no impact.  This paper was published before the 2016 election of Trump and the Brexit vote in the UK which categorically destroys such an idea.  In both instances the vast majority of influence groups and rich people took the side which opposed Trump and Brexit and they lost.  Another recent example is the referendum defeat in Ireland.

 

Edited April 13, 2024 by Sweet

[RichardGibbons]

I mean, even the Luca's "China's raising everyone up rather than just helping rich people" argument doesn't actually align with reality.  Pretty well every democratic country on earth has a lower Gini coefficient than China.

 

My guess is what he thinks of as evidence is actually propaganda, and he's ignoring the actual outcomes of the last 150 years of authoritarianism and communism.

 

It's pretty amazing to me that managed economies have been tried since Marx, and not one has even had close to the astounding beneficial results that arise from liberal free-market economies. And even more amazing that many people are so eager to completely ignore that evidence in favor of a story.

[Hektor]

6 hours ago, Sweet said:

How you managed to understand what I meant with all those errors I’ve no idea lol.

I might have read your edited version. Not sure what the edits were @Sweet, but what you wrote made sense to me 

[Libs]

On 4/13/2024 at 12:27 PM, RichardGibbons said:

It's pretty amazing to me that managed economies have been tried since Marx, and not one has even had close to the astounding beneficial results that arise from liberal free-market economies. And even more amazing that many people are so eager to completely ignore that evidence in favor of a story.

Bingo. As a friend of mine says, "wow, Marxism is the unluckiest system; if only some country could finally pick the right people to try it out!"

 

Karl Marx inflicted untold misery upon the world. 

Edited April 15, 2024 by Libs

[abyli]

On 4/13/2024 at 2:27 PM, RichardGibbons said:

I mean, even the Luca's "China's raising everyone up rather than just helping rich people" argument doesn't actually align with reality.  Pretty well every democratic country on earth has a lower Gini coefficient than China.

 

My guess is what he thinks of as evidence is actually propaganda, and he's ignoring the actual outcomes of the last 150 years of authoritarianism and communism.

 

It's pretty amazing to me that managed economies have been tried since Marx, and not one has even had close to the astounding beneficial results that arise from liberal free-market economies. And even more amazing that many people are so eager to completely ignore that evidence in favor of a story.

 

I am Chinese. I was born in China and now in US. I can tell that Luca has no clue what he is talking about. In China, 2.xx% people own 80% assets and 93% of people (around 1.3 Billion) owns 7% of total assets. Now the housing bubble is bursting (already down 30-40% from the peak in 2021), large home builders are filing bankruptcy one after another. (Hengda, BiGuiyuan, Wanke... ), local government owe so much debt (40 Trillion RMB + 60 Trillion RMB of City Investments companies, that is about total $14Trillion US dollar debt just for the local gov) that they do not even have cash to pay government employees. Financial crisis is ongoing because all those debts borrowed from big banks. All wakeup Chinese are trying to get out of the country, rich or poor. There is no future, no hope in the country. 

[formthirteen]

On 4/13/2024 at 6:20 PM, Ulti said:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosopher-king

 

This seems to have been implemented in Iran. This is from the brittanica.com link:

 

Quote

Meanwhile, in the Islamic world, the medieval philosopher Abū Naṣr al-Fārābī had championed the notion of a religiously devout philosopher king. More than 1,000 years later the notion of such a figure acting as the interpreter of law inspired the Ayatollah Khomeini and the revolutionary state that he shaped in Iran. Finally, and more broadly, the notion of the philosopher ruler has come to signify a general claim to domination by an unaccountable, if putatively beneficent, elite, as in certain forms of Marxism and other revolutionary political movements.

 

[Ulti]

19 minutes ago, formthirteen said:

More than 1,000 years later the notion of such a figure acting as the interpreter of law inspired the Ayatollah Khomeini and the revolutionary state that he shaped in Iran.

I read that and thought of the late 19th century quote .. to paraphrase...

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.. Seems to be catching on all over the world.

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html

[Parsad]

Chinese accounting books are about as fair and accurate:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-runner-win-invites-suspicion-115741551.html

 

Hilarious!  They're waving him forward because he was still so slow compared to them running at half speed.

 

Cheers!

[Parsad]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/chinese-city-zhengzhou-tells-state-055850040.html

 

Cheers!