Society/Culture Morrison Makes It Official, Whatever The Cost, We Will Not Surrender To China's Threats

[Mofra]

The problem is ideological. Nothing to do with trade. Trade is the one area where we get along. And Iron ore is our only leverage anyway. The world has excess supply of food now which can be produced anywhere. Tradeable Iron ore comes mostly from australia and brazil. Bolsanaros going even harder on the chinese then we are.

Our FOB price is much cheaper, simply due to the distance

 

[Ned_Flanders]

maybe if Australia was allowed to we would still have manufacturing and some local industries after gough signed Australia up to the UN, and old bob the globalist, continued on floating the dollar and allowing the unions to go nuts destroying local industry!

but but capitalism is the cry now days

1) Australia was a founding member of the UN, so you can blame Curtain/Chifley for that, not Gough

2) The UN did nothing on trade anyway, you're thinking GATT, which only came into play initially via the ITO in 1947 (and we were again a founding member). And again, you get to blame Chifley, not Gough.

3) Yes you can thank Bob the Globalist. Our imports may have increased under Bob's tariff reductions, but our exports grew even more. The reason we had a trade deficit was primarily off services - most significantly interest payments on debt (because we lack the capital for massive borrowings in Australia)

4) Floating the dollar was one of the best things our country ever did. Before that the Govt had to set the exchange rate, and it did it badly (like most govts do). Govt tends to be slow to respond to moves in the market, and also influenced by political considerations. Floating the dollar meant the value would be reflected by market conditions and reality. It also was a key to breaking inflation in Australia.

5) The unions didn't destroy local industry. Two things pushed manufacturers offshore - logistics and automation.

Improvements in the cost, efficiency, speed, and reliability of global transportation meant it was now possible to consolidate a firms manufacture in global hubs, thus using economies of scale to manufacture in high volume. This worked against australia as we are at the arse end of the world, and we are one of the more expensive places to ship from.

Secondly automation meant you could manufacture with far fewer people, but that you needed a larger initial start up cost. This meant you would want larger plants closer to your larger markets supply chains. again, worked against australia as our firms lacked the access to capital of our USA/Japanese/EU competitors, and again, arse end of the world.


other than that, you got everything right.

 

[Cactus_]

Wow. Looks like China are really really pissed off about us sending them those second rate Port v GCS games ...

 

[Taylor]

China knows how vulnerable they are if the world decides that they shouldn't make everything, they won't be able to string along their population for long before they present their army with a dilemma of whether to fire on protesters or side with them.

The CCP control information so well there though that if there was a mass protest and the local garrison sided with the protesters they could drop a nuke on the city and tell their people rebels in the military just attacked the people and they would believe it.

Then they purge the military ranks of any potentially suspicious characters.

 

[Ok Boomer]

The thing is, every trade ban or obstruction they implement also harms them as the buyer.

Why a buyer would actively seek to remove or restrict competition in the marketplace is beyond me. Take a look at what happens to the iron ore price every time Brazil has a mine collapse.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The thing is, every trade ban or obstruction they implement also harms them as the buyer.

Why a buyer would actively seek to remove or restrict competition in the marketplace is beyond me. Take a look at what happens to the iron ore price every time Brazil has a mine collapse.

look at what they are targeting - its stuff china either doesnt need (ie red wine) or has plenty of alternate supply options

also by using quarantine bans you can let imports in bursts when you need them (I used to cop this a lot from Thailand, China, and Korea)

 

[Taylor]

They extract a political cost for the nation they are leaning on. That's the entire game here.

 

[kranky al]

All of those conflicts were minor, the longest was the two week Sino Vietnamese conflict, and all conflicts directly on their borders or internal, and the last shot outside their borders was 1988. China has seen the failure of the US expeditionary wars and won't be conquering far off lands, including Australia.

As far as the poor white trash goes, yeah I'll stand by that statement. As long as we've got evangelical marketing dropouts, Pentecostal plants, IPA stooges who were well connected young Liberals at uni, blowhard mining bogans like Clive Palmer, Union lawyers and Fish and Chip shop owners dominating political discourse in this country we're not going to become a "Tech powerhouse" in your words. Hell we even had a neo-Nazi in the senate for a period. In social discourse being university educated makes you the target of sneers, "out of touch academic elites and so called experts" from the likes of those mentioned previously. Say all you want about China their system of government would never allow a Hanson or Anning (or even a Morrison or Abbott) to have a modicum of power.

you dont need to conquer

you can sure as hell use gunboat diplomacy on top of economic pressure to achieve aims

 

[Admiral Byng]

look at what they are targeting - its stuff china either doesnt need (ie red wine) or has plenty of alternate supply options

also by using quarantine bans you can let imports in bursts when you need them (I used to cop this a lot from Thailand, China, and Korea)

Look at what they are targeting from a political perspective. It is farmers mostly that are going to be hurt by this the most. Who do farmers vote for, and who will they complain to?

It is a common and smart tactic, target trade sanctions against the sort of people mostly likely to vote for the incumbent government. That way they get the message from their own constituents - your foreign policy is directly hurting us.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Look at what they are targeting from a political perspective. It is farmers mostly that are going to be hurt by this the most. Who do farmers vote for, and who will they complain to?

It is a common and smart tactic, target trade sanctions against the sort of people mostly likely to vote for the incumbent government. That way they get the message from their own constituents - your foreign policy is directly hurting us.

This is what they did with the USA - how many Harleys are in China?

 

[ExcitementMachine]

All of those conflicts were minor, the longest was the two week Sino Vietnamese conflict, and all conflicts directly on their borders or internal, and the last shot outside their borders was 1988. China has seen the failure of the US expeditionary wars and won't be conquering far off lands, including Australia.

As far as the poor white trash goes, yeah I'll stand by that statement. As long as we've got evangelical marketing dropouts, Pentecostal plants, IPA stooges who were well connected young Liberals at uni, blowhard mining bogans like Clive Palmer, Union lawyers and Fish and Chip shop owners dominating political discourse in this country we're not going to become a "Tech powerhouse" in your words. Hell we even had a neo-Nazi in the senate for a period. In social discourse being university educated makes you the target of sneers, "out of touch academic elites and so called experts" from the likes of those mentioned previously. Say all you want about China their system of government would never allow a Hanson or Anning (or even a Morrison or Abbott) to have a modicum of power.

The most disturbing thing about this post is that ned Flanders liked it for mine.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The most disturbing thing about this post is that ned Flanders liked it for mine.

My like was for the first part. As I've said many times, china has too much keeping its internal divisions in line (and this has been historic) to think about annexing India, Japan, or SE Asia - let alone takeover Australia.

The only time the Chinese empire has been aggressively expansionist has been during the two reigns of the Mongols.

Btw this isn't saying china is all peace love and mung beans, they just prefer nations to bow and offer tribute than annex and possess them.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

My like was for the first part. As I've said many times, china has too much keeping its internal divisions in line (and this has been historic) to think about annexing India, Japan, or SE Asia - let alone takeover Australia.

The only time the Chinese empire has been aggressively expansionist has been during the two reigns of the Mongols.

Btw this isn't saying china is all peace love and mung beans, they just prefer nations to bow and offer tribute than annex and possess them.

Fair enough.
Obviously Hanson and anning are a disgrace, but even they might find locking Muslims.in concentration camps, which is actually happening in China right now, to be a little odious.

Poster also came out with racist 'poor white trash of Asia ' and even went on to defend it, the comment in itself is disgraceful, and the context of it offensive and really stupid!

No wonder the ipa rules! What an idiot.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This is how China wants to operate. They want to use its size, influence and market power to ensure that Beijing is the dominant partner in its regional bilteral relationships.

In light of this, surely Trump's decision to scrap the TPP seems ill-advised. It would have meant that rather than Australia being vulnerable to isolation if China says "no soup for you", there would be an entire bloc established as an alternative. It would have meant that China isn't the only/biggest game in town.

In the absence of the TPP, guess what happened? China organised its own deal, the RCEP.

RCEP: Asia-Pacific countries form world's largest trading bloc

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership covers nearly a third of the global economy.

www.bbc.com

 

[Sweet Jesus]

My like was for the first part. As I've said many times, china has too much keeping its internal divisions in line (and this has been historic) to think about annexing India, Japan, or SE Asia - let alone takeover Australia.

The only time the Chinese empire has been aggressively expansionist has been during the two reigns of the Mongols.

Btw this isn't saying china is all peace love and mung beans, they just prefer nations to bow and offer tribute than annex and possess them.

They don't have to annex anything if they can peacefully acquire land as payment for infrastructure debts.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Fair enough.
Obviously Hanson and anning are a disgrace, but even they might find locking Muslims.in concentration camps, which is actually happening in China right now, to be a little odious.

Poster also came out with racist 'poor white trash of Asia ' and even went on to defend it, the comment in itself is disgraceful, and the context of it offensive and really stupid!

No wonder the ipa rules! What an idiot.

tbh i ignored that part, agree it was stupid

on xinjiang, those camps are hideous. my wife is from a province in china with a strong minority (ie non-Han) population. The "vocational camps" sound way too much in line with the old re-education camps of the past. thats a horror no sane person wants to revisit, and im genuinely afraid these camps may lead to that.

truth is the west doesnt give two shit about xinjiang because "muslims". all their horror is about HK.

BTW if you want an interesting read, there is a book called "Wild Swans". Its by a women who grew up in Maoist china, and is essentially the story of her grandmother (lived under the empire), her mum (lived during the war, the communist victory, and the cultural revolution), and her (kid during cultural revolution to being one of the first to study in the UK in the late 70's).

its very much from a female perspective, but gives a good view of life in china during those times, and the price women paid through those eras (the family has a LOT of disfunction)

 

[Ned_Flanders]

They don't have to annex anything if they can peacefully acquire land as payment for infrastructure debts.

I have zero issue with that, because noone forces anyone to borrow money in the first place.

if you're dumb enough to borrow beyond your means, thats on you (and i have this view for the ninja loan idiots in the usa)

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I have zero issue with that, because noone forces anyone to borrow money in the first place.

You have no issue with debt trap diplomacy?

It means smaller nations who get out ahead of their skis financially end up leasing parts of their territory to China. It creates an opportunity for China to carve out mini-fiefdoms in strategically useful locations without having to use force. Imagine its utility in Africa, for example, when Beijing comes knocking with an inexhaustible line of credit. Neocolonialism for the 21st century.

if you're dumb enough to borrow beyond your means, thats on you (and i have this view for the ninja loan idiots in the usa)

Newsflash: Some countries are badly governed. I'm not sure that warrants indifference to the implications, which are alarming from a geostrategy/security perspective.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

tbh i ignored that part, agree it was stupid

on xinjiang, those camps are hideous. my wife is from a province in china with a strong minority (ie non-Han) population. The "vocational camps" sound way too much in line with the old re-education camps of the past. thats a horror no sane person wants to revisit, and im genuinely afraid these camps may lead to that.

truth is the west doesnt give two sh*t about xinjiang because "muslims". all their horror is about HK.

And funnily enough the Muslim world doesn't seem to be in much hurry to hold China to account over its treatment of the Uygurs. But FMD if you show someone a cartoon of the prophet, there will be hell to pay. Boycott France! How come no boycotting China?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You have no issue with debt trap diplomacy?

It means smaller nations who get out ahead of their skis financially end up leasing parts of their territory to China. It creates an opportunity for China to carve out mini-fiefdoms in strategically useful locations without having to use force. Imagine its utility in Africa, for example, when Beijing comes knocking with an inexhaustible line of credit. Neocolonialism for the 21st century.

Newsflash: Some countries are badly governed. I'm not sure that warrants indifference to the implications, which are alarming from a geostrategy/security perspective.

smaller nations need to learn to live within their means. that port in sri lanka (for example) was just stupid to begin with

 

[Ned_Flanders]

And funnily enough the Muslim world doesn't seem to be in much hurry to hold China to account over its treatment of the Uygurs. But FMD if you show someone a cartoon of the prophet, there will be hell to pay. Boycott France! How come no boycotting China?

TBF most a preoccupied with fights much more local to them (even in central asia)

 

[Sweet Jesus]

smaller nations need to learn to live within their means. that port in sri lanka (for example) was just stupid to begin with

That doesn't make Beijing's designs less nefarious.

TBF most a preoccupied with fights much more local to them (even in central asia)

Did you not see the response to events in France and Macron's comments? Strange that their concerns don't extend to China's treatment of the Uygurs.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

That doesn't make Beijing's designs less nefarious.

Did you not see the response to events in France and Macron's comments? Strange that their concerns don't extend to China's treatment of the Uygurs.

or any other nation before them that did the same shit in africa, south america, and asia.

all that did was create tax bubbles that killed economies and simply transferred wealth to the west

banning "chinese" loans isnt the issue. its getting nations to live within their means full stop, so this kind of transfer doesnt happen.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

or any other nation before them that did the same sh*t in africa, south america, and asia.

all that did was create tax bubbles that killed economies and simply transferred wealth to the west

What point do you think this makes?

There has been colonialism before, so China's debt trap diplomacy should be of no concern?

Where is the rational connection there?

banning "chinese" loans isnt the issue. its getting nations to live within their means full stop, so this kind of transfer doesnt happen.

Who said anything about "banning loans"?

The point is that if China can use debt trap diplomacy to annex territory, they don't need to do it militarily.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

What point do you think this makes?

There has been colonialism before, so China's debt trap diplomacy should be of no concern?

Where is the rational connection there?

Who said anything about "banning loans"?

The point is that if China can use debt trap diplomacy to annex territory, they don't need to do it militarily.

what china is doing is no different to what the usa did via the world bank. the issue isnt singling out any one country, its getting countries to stop thinking loans are nothing money they dont have to repay