Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
ProudConservative

Do You Believe the Coronavirus Might Be an Orchestrated Globalist Takeover?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rue said:

 

Chinese investment does not help build a country. Look at Angola Sudan, Mozambique, Iran...all giving 95% of their oil to China. What do those countries have to show for it

 

They have the capital they earned from the sale ?  Look, I am not a fan of China but can we be real about this ?

1) Canada has little power
2) Money is money
3) Yes we can be ethical and push for change but see #1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Uhh... right.  Someone asked if Chinese investors buying up distressed assets was unusual and I said " I think all wealthy people will be doing the same thing." and now your response is "as they have in the rest of the world..." which seems like you have answered the original question, ie. "no"
2. Predators with cash in hand.  Ok.  If a Chinese person is the highest bidder on your asset will you sell to someone else ?  
3. Your statement is pretty extreme, but I don't care to argue it.  "Not a hope in hell" ?  Well if it's that obvious we would be scuttling the application already.
4. Yeah, so your anal sex metaphor is - as usual - extreme.  Unless you think 'taking it' means paying top dollar for something.  In any case, we are CANADA.  We have to dodge between superpowers like a dog dodges cars on the freeway, or maybe how an ant does.
5. We need money.  Would you rather have balls or be flat broke ?  Poor choice but I would pick the former.  And tough talk is really a distraction... Harper, McKay, Trudeau they all have the same problem facing them.

 

1.  The difference is: in many cases, it is a distress sale BECAUSE Chinese players had put the industry in that jam in the first place.   Sometimes, that means buying up compeitiors, dropping the price and waiting to snag control - and in others it is simply because circumstances made it a good opportunity to do so.  Had a friend in RSA who built coffins from Canadian hardwoods.  He suffered exactly the former circumstance - as did many other industries in sub-Saharan Africa.

2.   Of course, you or I will take whatever is available in crisis.  No choice.

3.   Again, I speak from personal experience, you seem to be arguing from an arms length perspective based on ideology, not reality.

4.   Lack of standards for imports from day 1, and no enforcement of what little consumer protection exists. You are quite right that we are not strong enough (mostly due to lack of anatomical equipment) to stand up to China, so we need to count on BC and his buddies to do it for us.   BTW: how do you think all of this fentanyl gets here?

5.   We actually HAVE the money, but we let Bay Street speculate with it instead of putting into productive use.   Doesn't really matter, because we don't seem to be prepared to actually DO any work with it anyhow.  Our entrepreneurial culture is miniscule and far too risk averse.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cannuck said:

Since many were something else before being Minster of something or another, few actually know diddly squat about much of anything, and their bureaucrats know that and snow them endlessly.  "Yes Minister" is a lot closer to the truth than we would like to believe.

Ministers are chosen, among other criteria, for regional representation. Because they are not experts in the ministry, they rely on senior public servants. Like all of us, public servants a human but they bring years of experience that can be invaluable to a new minister. There is nothing worse than a new boss with no experience in the field trying to tell someone who knows what they are doing, how you are doing it wrong. Your friend is clearly better equipped than most but if Sir James Hacker did not have the advice of Sir Humphrey, he would not have been able to avoid the pitfalls from dealing with TPLC's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, cannuck said:

1.  The difference is: in many cases, it is a distress sale BECAUSE Chinese players had put the industry in that jam in the first place.    

2.   Of course, you or I will take whatever is available in crisis.  No choice.

3.   Again, I speak from personal experience, you seem to be arguing from an arms length perspective based on ideology, not reality.

4.   Lack of standards for imports from day 1, and no enforcement of what little consumer protection exists. You are quite right that we are not strong enough (mostly due to lack of anatomical equipment) to stand up to China, so we need to count on BC and his buddies to do it for us.   BTW: how do you think all of this fentanyl gets here?

5.   We actually HAVE the money, but we let Bay Street speculate with it instead of putting into productive use.   Doesn't really matter, because we don't seem to be prepared to actually DO any work with it anyhow.  Our entrepreneurial culture is miniscule and far too risk averse.   

1. It's kind of irrelevant unless you are looking to either blame someone, or if you believe that it was a conspiracy.  We generally don't say "The US caused the 2008 housing crisis THEREFORE NO AMERICAN COMPANY SHALL BENEFIT FROM IT". In fact, it's the opposite.  We bail out and reward companies who are complicit in some cases.

2. Welcome to capitalism, I guess.

3. "Not a hope in hell" is your opinion.  I already said I don't care to argue but I have tired eyes for any argument that says we are faced with an obvious choice that governments refuse to take.

4.  No idea.  Fentanyl is a separate issue.

5. I have heard your arguments before, and always from NDPers but ok.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, cannuck said:

1. I have been involved with and promoted the idea of using trade instead of diplomacy or military alliances to dismantle communism and socialism for many decades.  I also had offices in China throughout the '90s and into this millennium.  I can assure readers that China has not had "slave labour" since the ascendance of Deng and the Four Pillars of Modern Reform.  What I have learned, though, is exactly what the Chinese version of business and culture is, and going back 25 years, cautioned by complacent and greedy American friends that China would steam roller them dead flat if they weren't cautious about setting controllable barriers to market entry.  I was laughed at - a LOT.  Nobody's laughing now.

2. It is only true that cheap Chinese (or any other imported goods) are good for SOME within our economy, and only for a short period of time. 

3. While China is quite capable of producing top quality products (if you have ridden in a big bizjet lately, much of it might well have been made near Shanghai) not understanding the Chinese belief that NOTHING should stand in the way of reaching whatever personal, familial, corporate or national goal - thus if as an importer if you don't have your own QA/QC (and even engineering) DIRECTLY on hand and in control, product specifications are going to drift...and that can be a LOT.   The ultimate control SHOULD have been at the border and ports where if a product can not be demonstrated and INDEPENDENTLY certified to meet our health, safety and contracted quality standards, they simply should not get in.

4. The garbage that we get now at the consumer and industrial level can cost far, far more to our economy than the immediate rush of profit the original importers made.  Remember about 20 years ago when airplanes started falling out of the sky because of counterfeit parts?    

5. It is exactly the bullshit that "our economy benefits" from cheap imports that puts us in the mess we have today.   

6. If we sold on the product to another country, or if the cheap crap had a lifespan longer than a flashbulb, it would set the stage to BE ABLE to benefit, but instead of shifting our capital and skills to higher value added production, we got drunk on the "information age" koolaid and simply stopped working and gave our economy over to Wall Street to speculate with. 

7. Those are not zero sum strategies, they are "end-of-the-era-of-productivity" and wealth creation guarantees.  Now that Wuhan Virus is exposing the weaknesses in our supply chains, we MIGHT learn to fix the f-ups, but experience has shown that won't happen. 

8. BTW: one of the FEW voices (albeit not a very articulate one) that speaks up to check Chinese bahaviour is one DJT .

1. Greedy ?  Like ... Apple ?  Controllable barriers to market entry ?  What is that ?
2. How so ?  Some ?  What or who do you mean by that ?
3. I don't know how to respond.  If people are buying bad quality products... then... why ?  I guess that's my first question.
4. Garbage like iPhones ?    iPhones seem to work fine.  Britain used to disparage other countries when their industries were failing in the 1960s and 70s.  It didn't work then either.
5. Not bullshit and not kool-aid, it's economic orthodoxy.  You are playing trade as zero sum and it's not.  
6. The idea that Chinese products are of poor quality isn't borne out.  Many western companies manufacture there.
7. I didn't say 'zero sum strategy'.  It's a framework for looking at trade and you are looking at it.  
8. Ok but he still goes to them for bailout funds, and is dependent on their prosperity.  He has indeed made changes, but don't mistake talk for action.  I think you think talk is as good as action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also have to answer no.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They have the capital they earned from the sale ?  Look, I am not a fan of China but can we be real about this ?

1) Canada has little power
2) Money is money
3) Yes we can be ethical and push for change but see #1

it's just not good enough anymore. What you advocate is to continue on the same path that brought us to this point. We should not do trade with a country that is not really a partner in good faith, and Chinese demonstrate that pretty clearly. Chinese state media outlets issued a threat that they would withhold medicine and PPE.

Quick google search. There are other links showing this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/coronavirus-china-us-drugs-trump-rubio-china-virus-xinhua-hell-epidemic-a9400811.html

 

Quote

Republican senator Marco Rubio ... pointed to an article in Xinhua, the state-run media agency, ... the article said the US’s reaction to China, including a travel ban, was “very unkind”. “If China retaliates against the United States at this time, in addition to announcing a travel ban on the United States, it will also announce strategic control over medical products and ban exports to the United States. Then the United States will be caught in the ocean of new coronaviruses,” the article said. “If China banned exports, the United States will fall into the hell of a new coronavirus pneumonia epidemic.”

You got that? Strategic control. Now returning to my earlier question, please explain how rich people are like the country China.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. it's just not good enough anymore.
2. What you advocate is to continue on the same path that brought us to this point.
3. We should not do trade with a country that is not really a partner in good faith, and Chinese demonstrate that pretty clearly.
4. Chinese state media outlets issued a threat that they would withhold medicine and PPE.
5. Please explain how rich people are like the country China.

1. Why not ?  Aren't you overreacting to the Covid situation ?  
2. See #3.  We can try to do better but we don't have as much power as that.
3. They are our number 3 trading partner and the number 2 individual country we have traded with, with a decades-long relationship since they undertook economic reform.  What does 'partner in good faith' mean exactly when they buy $63B in Canadian goods every year ?
4.  Yes, I read that as a ridiculous war of rhetoric between them and Trump.  They won - Trump doesn't call it the 'Chinese virus' anymore.  
5.  They act in their own best interests ?  Elon Musk opened a factory today, breaking the law and putting his employees at risk.  Let's ban Teslas from Canada and trade with the US ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why not ?  Aren't you overreacting to the Covid situation ?  
2. See #3.  We can try to do better but we don't have as much power as that.
3. They are our number 3 trading partner and the number 2 individual country we have traded with, with a decades-long relationship since they undertook economic reform.  What does 'partner in good faith' mean exactly when they buy $63B in Canadian goods every year ?
4.  Yes, I read that as a ridiculous war of rhetoric between them and Trump.  They won - Trump doesn't call it the 'Chinese virus' anymore.  
5.  They act in their own best interests ?  Elon Musk opened a factory today, breaking the law and putting his employees at risk.  Let's ban Teslas from Canada and trade with the US ?

300,000 deaths so far and counting, would beg to differ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

300,000 deaths so far and counting, would beg to differ.

On which point ?  Lots of countries have been slow to react, have misled their people - including Canada and the US on some level.  

I'm not a fan of China but... STOPPING trade with our #3 partner ?  Not even the NDP would promote such a folly, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not a fan of China but... STOPPING trade with our #3 partner ?  Not even the NDP would promote such a folly, sorry.

Abruptly stopping, no. Abruptly working towards stopping, yes. It only makes sense to make changes like that for anything that involves our national security. We must be more self-sufficient. Globalism is a failure. Now let us not fall into the same stupidity as though we might expect a different outcome. You know what that means. Insanity

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Abruptly stopping, no. Abruptly working towards stopping, yes. It only makes sense to make changes like that for anything that involves our national security. We must be more self-sufficient. Globalism is a failure. Now let us not fall into the same stupidity as though we might expect a different outcome. You know what that means. Insanity

Phasing out $63B in exports to build an economic wall around ourselves seems more insane, to me.

Do you think any of the parties would suggest such a thing? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Phasing out $63B in exports to build an economic wall around ourselves seems more insane, to me.

Do you think any of the parties would suggest such a thing? 

I know you can't agree, but you will see this happening anyway despite that it clashes with your sense of stability.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I know you can't agree, but you will see this happening anyway despite that it clashes with your sense of stability.

I don't think that it will.  There may be some steps to mitigate Chinese influence, somehow, but not a program to stop trade and investment.

The only way to replace the revenue and investment capital would be a nationalization of the economy AFAICS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that it will.  There may be some steps to mitigate Chinese influence, somehow, but not a program to stop trade and investment.

Judging by the level of rhetoric coming from USA, some of it well founded, you'll now see a "sea-change" in attitude toward globalism and multi-culti. This is coming from the grass roots itself, driven by that most powerful political engine fear. The other has been identified.

What is happening today is unprecedented, never before in history. I keep saying that. Not just one industry, one economy, one country. When that happens you still have other industries that are going strong that act as a buffer. Now of course all industries, all economies, all countries. You will see an reversal in consumer's attitude toward buying global versus local, and it needs no political argument to justify.

Back to my first point whither goes US there must go Canada. Thank god for that too.

Edited by OftenWrong
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They have the capital they earned from the sale ?  Look, I am not a fan of China but can we be real about this ?

1) Canada has little power
2) Money is money
3) Yes we can be ethical and push for change but see #1

I get you really I do..I am the extremist on this one..I admit the logical answer is business with safeguards built in..but I am in an extremist mood over China's government. Their handling and cover up of the virus and treatment of Hong Kong and behaviour in the South China sea, their refusal to apologize and acknowledge the lack of chygiene controls in their wet markets, their illegal invasion of Tibet, Vietnam, it all to me justifies isolation until they make serious reforms. I will not hold my breath and acknowledge my position is extreme and yours is more rational. Hey you hate Rex Murphy I hate China's current government.  

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think that it will.  There may be some steps to mitigate Chinese influence, somehow, but not a program to stop trade and investment.

The only way to replace the revenue and investment capital would be a nationalization of the economy AFAICS.

I think we could and should divest from China. It means finding new alternative markets in Asia, Africa, South America and the EU. It can be done. Increased trade with Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, India to start with. We do not need their cheap shit, put a large tariff on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consumers won’t stop buying cheap goods, so any curtailing of imports from China has to happen at the government level, but imposing tariffs is a blunt instrument.  There are no conditions tied to tariffs, so they don’t change behaviour.  The freer the trade the greater should be the adherence to standards in wages, human rights, quality control, environmental protection, etc.   Instead, China and other countries get to keep their manufacturing costs much lower than ours by having low standards.  I don’t know why this is difficult to understand.

Our companies and governments have become so invested in China and the cheap imports that are part of supply chains that there’s no incentive to seek other suppliers, just like consumers see little incentive to buy more expensive domestically produced goods.

Trade rules need to change and be enforced.  Once these cheap imports reach our factories and shelves, it’s too late.  Companies and consumers will buy them, especially when times are tough.

Either our governments set up new rules on trade or they should start requiring that Mandarin be taught in schools, because that will be the language of many future employers, for the few jobs that exist outside of China.  Oh wait, robots can do most of those...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Judging by the level of rhetoric coming from USA, some of it well founded, you'll now see a "sea-change" in attitude toward globalism and multi-culti. This is coming from the grass roots itself, driven by that most powerful political engine fear. The other has been identified.

2. What is happening today is unprecedented, never before in history. I keep saying that. Not just one industry, one economy, one country. When that happens you still have other industries that are going strong that act as a buffer. Now of course all industries, all economies, all countries. You will see an reversal in consumer's attitude toward buying global versus local, and it needs no political argument to justify.

3. Back to my first point whither goes US there must go Canada. Thank god for that too.

1. Globalism and multiculturalism are two separate but related things.   There is money to be made in globalism and so Republicans will support it.  The 'grass roots' will do as they're told: wearing masks, calling in the Chinese virus, then switching when dear leader tells them too.
2. You are saying that consumers will stop buying iPhones or will buy them at a much higher cost.   I'm not so sure that patriotism is going to "trump" self interest.  You perhaps don't understand the scale of the involvement of China in our economy.
3. Except that the US government is acting in its own interest also, but you don't seem to see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rue said:

I think we could and should divest from China. It means finding new alternative markets in Asia, Africa, South America and the EU. It can be done. Increased trade with Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, India to start with. We do not need their cheap shit, put a large tariff on it. 

There's no 'alternative market' to the largest market in the world.  Of course it can be done.  Easiest way I can see is Bank of Canada prints fake money, nationalizes everything and eventually make one-party Liberal rule.  That seems to be the easiest way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rue said:

1. I am in an extremist mood over China's government.
2. Their handling and cover up of the virus and treatment of Hong Kong and behaviour in the South China sea, their refusal to apologize and acknowledge the lack of chygiene controls in their wet markets, their illegal invasion of Tibet, Vietnam, it all to me justifies isolation until they make serious reforms.
3. I will not hold my breath and acknowledge my position is extreme and yours is more rational. Hey you hate Rex Murphy I hate China's current government.  

1. Me too, but we actually don't have much choice.
2. Yeah.. and... wait... Vietnam ?  Wasn't that the 70s ?  ... Look if we are going to destroy the economy then let's cut off Russia, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and ... what the hell ... the US too.  They did bad stuff in the 70s and even in the 80s !  What was that support for Pinochet ?  PUNISH 'EM.  The government can conscript unemployed oil workers, buy mines under eminent domain and pay them in Justin bucks... Canada is actually one of the few nations in the world that can almost fully support itself.  We won't get apples, shrimp, or iPhones but the new Rogers phone hardware will work fine as long as we cancel our obligations to international patent laws.  This should be fun. :lol:  I'm just funnin' you.
3. I don't hate anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Globalism and multiculturalism are two separate but related things.   There is money to be made in globalism and so Republicans will support it.  The 'grass roots' will do as they're told: wearing masks, calling in the Chinese virus, then switching when dear leader tells them too.
2. You are saying that consumers will stop buying iPhones or will buy them at a much higher cost.   I'm not so sure that patriotism is going to "trump" self interest.  You perhaps don't understand the scale of the involvement of China in our economy.
3. Except that the US government is acting in its own interest also, but you don't seem to see that.

Oh it's not going to be easy, and not everything either. Did I say iPhones or did I say items necessary for our security? Are you insecure without a phone. Please, read my words, or be damned. I need not repeat myself, except to a moron.

And just because I don't also add a nice safe closer for you like... "oh and the US is looking after their interests..." etc., means nothing of the sort that you "seem to see". Dont assume what I don't see by exclusion, simply because I didn't put you in a safe space at the end. Such presuppositions are yet another stupid liberal trait.

3. Why should I bother to clarify that little nonsense for you. So what if they are in their own interest? Who isnt? And what can little Canada do about that- not a thing so it has no relevance, and is not an excuse for another belligerent superpower that is clearly is no comparison to the US or any western country. China's not like the EU either.

So please, keep your apologist rhetoric for another Trudeau speech. This high-handed garbage simply don't float no more.

 

Edited by OftenWrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Consumers won’t stop buying cheap goods, so any curtailing of imports from China has to happen at the government level, but imposing tariffs is a blunt instrument.  
2. There are no conditions tied to tariffs, so they don’t change behaviour.  
3. The freer the trade the greater should be the adherence to standards in wages, human rights, quality control, environmental protection, etc.   Instead, China and other countries get to keep their manufacturing costs much lower than ours by having low standards.  I don’t know why this is difficult to understand.
4. Our companies and governments have become so invested in China and the cheap imports that are part of supply chains that there’s no incentive to seek other suppliers, just like consumers see little incentive to buy more expensive domestically produced good.  Trade rules need to change and be enforced.  Once these cheap imports reach our factories and shelves, it’s too late.  Companies and consumers will buy them, especially when times are tough.
5. Either our governments set up new rules on trade or they should start requiring that Mandarin be taught in schools, because that will be the language of many future employers, for the few jobs that exist outside of China.  Oh wait, robots can do most of those...

1. Let's not use the term 'cheap goods'.  There are a host of imports and services at play.  Do you think iPhone's are 'cheap' ?  I don't.  I had a ZTC phone.
2. Trump did the trade war with China.  Did he attach 'conditions' and what were they ?  Did they stop this from happening ?  Do you think Canada could be harder than Trump was ?
3. It's not difficult to understand but it's not done.  For SOME REASON it's very rare for business interests, uh sorry "trade negotiators" to be interested in enshrining labour and environmental rights.  
4. Again, one dimensional take on this... 'cheap imports'.  Something else I just thought of: Real Estate investments.  Every Canadian home owner could be impacted by China pulling out of real estate.  In fact, the scale of the impact can't be estimated accurately.
5. Too dramatic.  We have traded with people as bad or worse than China in the past... we can do better but we aren't going to walk away from this relationship.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last week there was a report that the first case of Covid-19 known so far was in France. Remember that the "Spanish" flu actually started in Kansas. So far, there is no evidence of where or how Covid-19 moved into the human population. Corona viruses are generally found in bats but they can sometimes be passed to another animal such as poultry or swine before moving into the human population.

This is my long winded way to make the point we don't know where it originated and speculation and blame is counter- productive. 

As for globalism, if you don't like it, buy Canadian, but don't expect you have the right to make the rest of us live like Albanians.

Edited by Queenmandy85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They have the capital they earned from the sale ?  Look, I am not a fan of China but can we be real about this ?

1) Canada has little power
2) Money is money
3) Yes we can be ethical and push for change but see #1

China's Belt and Road initiative is becoming a real problem for the nations (Like Italy) that signed up with China.  This seems to be no better compared to how the west raped Africa. It's still rape! And now the debt owed to China from these nations is very high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...