The players behind ramping up of anti-China propaganda

[ocfightfan]

The TS and his BS podcast...

 

[Amerikuracana]

What did these "support policies" get us, in the 40 odd years since Nixon welcomed China? Or you could just go back 30 years to the post Berlin Wall era.



Getting rid of Saddam did free the Kurds and Shia though. I was against the war, but not against deposing Saddam. Putting sanctions on Apartheid S.A. did lead to dismantling of Apartheid.



We can move manufacturing out of China and into South East Asia, India, Bangladesh, Latin America and Africa. It will help to lift all these regions out of poverty. Concentrating our eggs in the China basket has exposed to everyone we got caught with our pants down. Primary reason for our lack of PPE supplies is outsourcing, specifically outsourcing to China. Living standards in the West was very high in the 50s and 60s, which was before all this outsourcing.




That was Trump's fault. I am not Trump fan. I disagree with a lot of what he says and does. TPP is fine, though Brunei should have beene excluded, but we still need to move some manufacturing back home. Relying on others for essential stuff puts us at their mercy.

If SA and Iraq completely fall apart, then our PC vision for their future was wrong. Period. No debate.

 

[loyalyolayal]

I love how China is fucking up the Mekong river flow to screw the nations that rely on it. Now they'll understand why island asean nations are pissed. Indochina has been pretty lax until the Mekong issue.

 

[Madmick]

This is an in-depth exploration of the personalities and right-wing think-tanks who are engaged in a concerted effort to push anti-Chinese propaganda through both their own outlets and mainstream news media, using the current pandemic to posture for the engagement of a new cold war with China. There seems to be an abundance of stories and opinions imparting blame and suspicion on China, often from unidentified sources and without convincing evidence to support. Its observable many here (if not even, perhaps a majority) are fully on-board with these sentiments; that is their prerogative, and this is not attempt to challenge those perspectives, but some may find it interesting to learn more about who's behind the emergence of these stories and their agenda. I found it incredibly insightful.



part 2:

Oh, look, they used the buzzword "neocon"! We should listen to them!

The roots of "Media Roots" is this journalist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Martin

She's a puppet for Putin via RT and the Alternet; the latter a website that pushes Russian propaganda by the preferred tactic of feeding disruptive conspiracy theories favorable to Russian interests through the tragically fallen Wikileaks service which Russian clearly co-opted years ago following Assange's exile. She's also a 9/11 Truther, someone who enthusiastically advanced Venezuelan propaganda in a "documentary" series via Telesur, and a lobbyist for CAIR. Now she's playing the whore for China.

Essentially, she's a passaround cumrag handed from Russia to Venezuela to Iran to China.

Sweet Bahamut, the irony to these "roots".

 

[vapor&dust]

Some issues with this argument:

1. "Devastating" is not defined. If you try to, you'll find that the median impact on wages is under 1%, though workers on the lower end of the distribution took more of that, and the effect was limited in time (no longer weighing down there). No one likes any downward pressure on wages for any length of time, but I don't think that most people would call a 0.7% or so downward pressure "devastating."
2. "(tradeoff) didn't eliminate (bad thing)" is not an argument that the tradeoff wasn't beneficial. If we try to quantify the value of cheaper goods, we see that it's much higher than the impact on wages mentioned above.
3. Less precise here, but I'm seeing inconsistency in the value of Chinese lives as it relates to the U.S. economy in these arguments. If we care about Chinese human-rights abuses (which I agree we should) and are willing to sacrifice relative impoverishment of American workers, we should equally care about raising the standard of living of Chinese workers. I understand that you and @MicroBrew are not the same person, and maybe he thinks that the average American should be willing to effectively pay $10K a year to protect Chinese citizens from human-rights abuses (not that I think that cutting off trade would actually make Chinese citizens better off, but maybe he disagrees), but you don't think that it's a good tradeoff. My experience, though, is that people are inconsistent on this score.



This again reflects some cost blindness, IMO, though probably not a consistent one. Meaning, by the same logic, we should never leave our homes because we might get hit by a car. Probably a better solution would be to maintain free movement of our people and allow tourism, but not put morons in the WH. I think we should all hope that the past four years have taught Americans a lesson about the importance of experienced and intelligent leadership.

You're approaching this through Ayn Rand's goofy worldview or 'philosophy' down to how its adherents like to argue and which has nothing to do with reality. Average hourly wages have stayed the same for 40 years (1978-2018) in terms of purchasing power but you pulled out some bogus numbers. So stuff is cheaper and wages increased but inflation negated purchasing power so you can't buy more of that cheap crap. Yes I'd call that devastating. China was the net beneficiary.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...rs-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Re Chinese human rights and standard of living you're confusing me with someone else or creating a strawman. I wish the Chinese people the best when it comes to that but it's not our responsibility to sacrifice our standard of living and deindustrialize so that they may achieve this. Also, imposing our concept of human rights usually doesn't work unless you bring a country to its knees like we did Japan and Germany.

Someone such as yourself is totally clueless about Chicoms. They would never do the same for us or anyone else but for some perverse reason you think we should be stupid enough to maintain such a relationship.

Meaning, by the same logic, we should never leave our homes because we might get hit by a car.

No it isn't the same logic but it is another of your strawmen.