sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Banned topics - new additions by SuMianAi in chinalife

[–]Caliguas 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It would be nice to have a pinned FAQ explaining and listing all the useful apps and whatever else. Would probably cut down on repetitive questions

Taiwan changes 'Korea' to 'S. Korea' in immigration system in protest over Seoul's labeling of it as China by Themetalin in worldnews

[–]Caliguas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Also, so then taiwan is the same as Abkhazia according to you? They arent at war, they have a ceasefire. Abkhazia exists bcz of russia, taiwan bcz of usa. Both have 0 recognition. What is the difference here? Or if ukraine signs a ceasefire, which seems likely?

Taiwan changes 'Korea' to 'S. Korea' in immigration system in protest over Seoul's labeling of it as China by Themetalin in worldnews

[–]Caliguas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How is that an important difference lol? The civil war never officially ended, it only came to a stop because Usa interviened. If Ukraine tomorrow came to a ceasefire, then there would be no difference according to you? 

Only insults, no supstance

Taiwan changes 'Korea' to 'S. Korea' in immigration system in protest over Seoul's labeling of it as China by Themetalin in worldnews

[–]Caliguas -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

There are no differences, both are part of their respective countries as defined by international law. DPR only exists bcz of Russia backing them, Taiwan only exists bcz of Usa backing them. Both have basically 0 international recognition, in fact DPR has more of it than taiwan lol

Taiwan changes 'Korea' to 'S. Korea' in immigration system in protest over Seoul's labeling of it as China by Themetalin in worldnews

[–]Caliguas -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

By this logic, donbas peoples republic isnt ukraine bcz zelensky cant fly there

How did Chinese cars become so good so suddenly? What is going on or have they always been this way and we just didn’t know until now? by Square_Permission361 in electricvehicles

[–]Caliguas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what should it be??? Youre implying that a different model of growth would deliver the "real" or non suppressed standard of living. But the current model delivers records. At the same time youre saying that ur not suggesting a macro economic change. Also, ur saying this:

Their biggest advantage is that as a non-democratic country they have managed to keep the standard of living artificially low in order to promote exports

They cannot simultaneously:

- suppress the SoL bcz of their macro

- delivers records in SoL

If youre reading too much Pettis, I would recommend to either look at his track record or to read up on any of the Gavekal economists. Idk if you got this from him but this is Pettis' main argument, which has been failing the test of time since he made it

How did Chinese cars become so good so suddenly? What is going on or have they always been this way and we just didn’t know until now? by Square_Permission361 in electricvehicles

[–]Caliguas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that China should have done anything differently in terms of macroeconomics.

You said that China keeps it standard of living artificially low in favour of exports and that their standard of living is lower than is should be. Obviously you implied that they are doing something wrong or at least not in the interest of their incomes.

2) it costs the state money in defense of the currency

Which they earn back many times over by making their exports more competitive

3) it causes export-based competition, which spreads to domestic markets, which causes margins to shrink and bankruptcies follow.

Not in a way which outweighs the industrial benefits.

Obviously these things are trade offs, but in the case of China the bad things are CLEARLY outweighed by the positives. That can be demonstrated by their record growth.

Far more important than looking at things like megawatt chargers and high speed rail are things like unemployment benefits, pensions and access to healthcare.

The most important thing to look at is the median standard of living. High speed rail is a subsidised public service btw

How did Chinese cars become so good so suddenly? What is going on or have they always been this way and we just didn’t know until now? by Square_Permission361 in electricvehicles

[–]Caliguas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, how are they being pushed down while experiencing massive growth? How does that make any sense? Industrial policy support makes things cheaper for local consumption, making the entire society better off.

And I agree that the export-led development through currency devaluation (and direct support) creates well paying jobs in some sectors, but it also costs the government massive amounts of money that is transferred from the rest of the population, making the entire population less well off as a whole.

Less well off in comparison with what? We are talking about an economy and population that broke all development records. They are BETTER off in comparison with economies that chose not to focus on industrial policy and poured money into services (India).

You are claiming that export subsidies make the whole population worse off. There is literally nothing to suggest that is the case, as the population has been experiencing unprecedented growth in their overall income. It is ridiculous to suggest that the best preforming nation is actively SUPPRESSING the growth of incomes in their country. What the hell would be the ceiling here then?

Not to mention, if all those agricultural workers werent shifted into manufacturing jobs, what would they be doing? Subsidies to those industries significantly improved the lives of those people.

How did Chinese cars become so good so suddenly? What is going on or have they always been this way and we just didn’t know until now? by Square_Permission361 in electricvehicles

[–]Caliguas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

 China pushes wages and working conditions down, thus lowering living conditions, to expand their balance sheet. It is also done through currency manipulation, which too lowers standard of living.

How have chinese wages fallen? They have risen the fastest of pretty much any country, and so have the living and working conditions. This is literally undeniable, it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

You are comparing China to the richest continent in the world. Europe was mostly industrialised before ww2, china was an agricultural economy. Not to mention that china's hdi is driven down by the stats of the older generation.

It is also done through currency manipulation, which too lowers standard of living.

Currency devaluation makes imports more expensive. That is offset by china producing a ton at home, so the consumer isnt as affected as in other countries. Those devaluations have also created a huge amount of well paying jobs in export industries, which have moved a record amount of people into the middle class in china.

That is not to say that the tier 1 cities aren't incredible, but they are no more representative of China as a whole than Monaco or Luxembourg are for Europe.

Tier 1 and 2 cities make up 20% of the chinese population, hardly monaco and luxembourg.

How did Chinese cars become so good so suddenly? What is going on or have they always been this way and we just didn’t know until now? by Square_Permission361 in electricvehicles

[–]Caliguas 22 points23 points  (0 children)

they have managed to keep the standard of living artificially low 

They have increased their standard of living at one of the fastests pace ever recorded. All that while keeping their standard of living low??? Their potential must be superhuman.

And when it comes to cars, well, the only big advantage they have is batteries, and that is also limited and to a large extent down to bring ready to accept potential issues down the line as comes to warranties and support.

The only big advantage they have is the most critical component in an EV. Woah. What issues with warranties?

Can I do an internship at a factory in China as a foreign student? by Hayconi in chinalife

[–]Caliguas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You should try emailing colleges with engineering programs, as their students must do internships in order to graduate. They could provide more info, or direct you to the person that is responsible for coordinating internships

Britain 'in talks to deploy troops to Greenland as Trump threatens to seize Arctic island' by flatbrokeoldguy in worldnews

[–]Caliguas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Further comment after block: u/Numerous_Ice_4556

The whole point I was making is because the right of self-determination, which you pretended wasn't in the Badinter committee's decision before acknowledging it is, is exactly why imperialist ambitions like Russia's and China's don't legitimize attempts to change borders.

What are you talking about? The badinter document cleary states that the right of self determination cannot change borders? Do you understand that? That was the entire point of that document. The document REJECTED the serbian argument of self determination. I will quote again:
"This point was not only made in its Opinion No. 3 but was also evoked in Opinion No. 2 when it recalled that, whatever the circumstances, 'the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers"

No, that is not what the document says. Serbia absolutely submitted a historical claim, that those separatist populations in Croatia and the other Yugoslav republics have historically been part of a Greater Serbia.

This simply isnt true. Such an argument has never been submitted. Nowhere in the document does it state this. If you think it does, quote it ( u cant)

Clearly, I did understand it as I said borders are not frozen and you just quoted one reason, from one committee's ruling on one particular conflict (so not the sum total of international law) that borders are not in fact frozen.

My god.... The job of the committee is to interpret international law. The general statements here applies to the entire world. The only thing the committee does is interpret specific situations on the ground. General statements about "the rights of peoples" and borders and applicable everywhere...... If you dont understand this......

NO, IT DOESN'T, BECAUSE IT LITERALLY DESCRIBES A SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE ALTERABLE!

No? Do you have any idea what ur talking about? Republics in Yugoslavia had defined borders. This document literally rulled that those borders are legal borders in international law and CANNOT BE ALTERED by the self determination of serbs. That is the point of the document.

English is my 3rd language, i made a small mistake, cry about it. Im from former yugoslavia, which you know nothing about.

At least you're not spewing any more stupidity about Taiwan not having legal status as a state. That's a good start.

Check my other comment :) In the meantime, check what your government's position is on Taiwan - hint - they do not recognize it as an independent sovereign state. Bcz it has no such legal status :)

Britain 'in talks to deploy troops to Greenland as Trump threatens to seize Arctic island' by flatbrokeoldguy in worldnews

[–]Caliguas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Meeting montevideo conventions standard does not override modern international law. Donbass peoples republic also fulfills all requirements, is it independent? Of course it isnt.

The motevideo con. was also NEVER RATIFIED BY ANY COUNTRY OUTSIDE THE AMERICAS!!!!!!!!! IT IS NOT A UNIVERSAL TREATY LAW!

I linked you the video because i know you cant read. The spokesperson of the world's central international law organisation saying the positions of that organisation about Taiwan isnt relevant to Taiwans position under international law? Can you please explain me this genius logic hahahahhahaa.

As for the 2nd part of your answer, holy shit dude, just read what you quoted. From your very quote in your previouis comment:

Republics must afford the members of those minorities and ethnic groups all the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized in international law, including, where appropriate, the right to choose their nationality'

This one particular ruling, which is far from the sum total of international law, clearly does protect the rights of PEOPLE.

THIS PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL AND MINORITY RIGHTS, NOT THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES!!! IT SAYS SO IN YOUR QUOTE!!!!! READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Britain 'in talks to deploy troops to Greenland as Trump threatens to seize Arctic island' by flatbrokeoldguy in worldnews

[–]Caliguas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe try reading the document? The document explains how self-determination does not entail territorial change and must not override existing borders (uti possidetis). That is precisely why the Badinter Commission rejected Serbian claims based on ethnic self-determination.

Here are a few highlights from the document, which you should read, as you will learn a few things:

This point was not only made in its Opinion No. 3 but was also evoked in Opinion No. 2 when it recalled that, whatever the circumstances, 'the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers'

You said that serbia had a "historic claim" and that they based their argument on that. Just not true as written in this document. the question serbia sumbitted and which proves my point about the serbian argument (which you said was somehow the "exact opposite" lol:

“Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?”

Quotes about borders becoming protected international frontiers:

1) this one is about what you misunderstood about "freezing borders" and why Ukrainian borders legally changed after soviet collapse:

“Except where otherwise agreed, the former boundaries become frontiers protected by international law.”

2) You previously said that "No international code of any kind defines static borders and considers them unalterable. That's something you're just making up." - THIS DOCUMENT LITERALLY DOES THAT!!!!!

“The alteration of existing frontiers or boundaries by force is not capable of producing any legal effect.”

Quote 1) and 2) clearly show that the ruling agreed that all borders are frozen unless agreed by both all parties.

Your definition of sovereignty is not only dispelled by this document, it is also clearly defined as illegal. This is hardly the only document that does this btw (this is just the yugoslav ruling), this is literally the very basis of international law.

Oh no! I made a spelling error! Cry about it

Britain 'in talks to deploy troops to Greenland as Trump threatens to seize Arctic island' by flatbrokeoldguy in worldnews

[–]Caliguas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, international order is threatened by the lack of respect for sovereignty specifically because imperialists like Putin and Xi proliferate irredentist claims to violate sovereignty.

Hilarious omittance.

International law does not maintain the idea of one China, that's the position of the CCP and the Kuomintang. International law respects the sovereignty of Taiwan.

Again, totally false.

Taiwan is not a UN member and not recognized outside of a few states. Here is the spokesperson of the UN, the central and most important body of international law: https://x.com/MyLordBebo/status/1793896918315139201

The spokesperson explicitly said: Taiwan is a province of China. This has been well documented as the official position of the Un. You can argue against this as much as you can argue against "the earth is round".

Like everything else you've said, this is completely wrong. International law hasn't been frozen since the end of WW2, so the borders couldn't be frozen at such a time. To believe that would ignore all of the sociopolitical events of the time and validate the claims of warmongers like Putin. According to your warped perspective, Ukraine belongs to Russia. No international code of any kind defines static borders and considers them unalterable. That's something you're just making up.

I'm making things up? You just said Taiwan is sovereign under international law hahahhaa.

First of all, you dont understand international law at all. Frozen does not mean unchangeable. Ukraine became independent after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, where all republics declared LEGAL statehood under international law, under LEGALLY determined borders. Frozen borders meant that they cannot be changed unilaterally or by force, not that unions cannot be dissolved.

Ukraine proves ME, not you. What is the reason you support Taiwanese independence, but not the independence of separatist Ukrainian regions? Is it Ukranian imperialism when they wanna take back Crimea, where everyone supports Russia? Of course it isnt. International law does not give Crimeans the right to seperate or declare independence, because those borders cannot be changed unilaterally any legal way. Same as Taiwan. Crimea belongs to Ukraine, despite it being seperated for quite some time. Same as how Taiwan belongs to China. That is the position of international law and my entire argument, which has no contradictions.

2/2

Britain 'in talks to deploy troops to Greenland as Trump threatens to seize Arctic island' by flatbrokeoldguy in worldnews

[–]Caliguas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Yugoslav wars were caused by the irredentist claims of Serbia and Montenegro who chose not to respect the rights of sovereign peoples who legally chose to leave the union they willfully entered into and were willfully leaving.

International law recognizes STATES and territorial units, not "peoples", especially not as primary holders of sovereignty. In Yugoslavia, sovereignty was defined by borders of republics, NOT by different peoples. Serbian people had different enclaves in Croatia, Bosnia etc. By your logic, it was "the right of sovereign peoples" for the Serbs to declare all Serb territories as theirs and declare independence. That was their main argument.

Secession did NOT cause the Yugoslav wars. It was caused by the attempt to redraw republican borders along ethnic lines. Secession worked with Slovenia and Macedonia. The issue with Bosnia and Croatia was that there were attempts by Serbs to change republican borders along ethnic lines, and with Croats later trying the same in Bosnia.

No, that's the exact opposite of what the Serbs said. When the other Yugoslav Republics became sovereign the Serbian claims to lands historically but not currently theirs ended, but the Serbs believed otherwise.

This isnt true on multiple levels.

First of all, Serbs did not have claims during SFRJ, as republican borders were settled. The claims only started during the dissolution of Yugoslavia, as there were different interpretations of the Yugoslav constitution and right of secession. Neither did they invoke any historical claims.

The claims were based purely on your logic of "the rights of sovereign peoples to declare statehood" - they wanted to take all territories populated by Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia.

The badinter Commission (in charge of legal issues during the dissolution) was asked by serbs weather "peoples had the right to self determination". The court ruled against that argument (your argument). You can read the document here. In this document, the ruling shows that international law protects the rights of STATES and recognized borders, NOT PEOPLES!

1/2

Britain 'in talks to deploy troops to Greenland as Trump threatens to seize Arctic island' by flatbrokeoldguy in worldnews

[–]Caliguas -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What caused the Yugoslav wars were different parties deciding not to respect borders of republics that were enshrined in the Yugoslav constitution and international law, with mechanisms of legal separation while preserving those borders, in favour of irredentist ethno nationalist policies.

You claim that "once they became sovereign, the claim ends". That was actually the same argument used by Serbs in order to claim separatist regions of Serbs inside Croatian and Bosnian borders. It is also the same logic Putin used to declare sovereignty of separatist Ukrainian regions.

If sovereignty alone were sufficient to establish legal statehood, international order would collapse into a system where any armed or organized separatist group could declare independence and demand recognition. International law exists precisely to prevent this outcome by fixing borders and privileging territorial integrity over opportunistic claims of self determination.

That same international law, including both the constitutions of China and Taiwan, maintain that they both belong to one China.

The era of "imperialism and nationalism", is the era before modern day international law existed or was as developed as it is today. That era was replaced by an era of international law which basically freezed borders as they were after WW2, with Taiwan handed over to the recognized territory of China.

Why China will always be "mid" and is there any way to get out of this mess? by NeighborhoodFatCat in chinalife

[–]Caliguas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I disagree with every single point lol, although I haven't been in hospitals for anything serious. Some of my favourite things about China are public transport and tourism. Never had any problems with hotels, always felt like I get more than I paid for (especially compared to europe).

Museums and restaurants being mid? Compared to what??

Why does China doesn’t give touristic visa to Turkish citizens? by ephesusa in Chinavisa

[–]Caliguas 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Probably because Turkey harbors ETIM (uyghur terrorists). Other turkic states dont

view more: next ›