- 31 Posts
- 51 Comments
31·11 days agoThis Yoghtos is just a troll frequently spreading hatred and insulting other users while parotting Chinese propaganda. Safe your breathe I would say.
Is there a special reason why you frequently turn to this sort of second-hand intimidation in your posts? Do you think your often misleading and - as in this case here- false information is more credible then?
The national wealth-income ratio increased from 350 percent in 1978 to 700 percent in 2015, while the share of public property in national wealth declined from 70 percent to 30 percent. We provide sharp upward revision of official inequality estimates. The top 10 percent income share rose from 27 percent to 41 percent between 1978 and 2015; the bottom 50 percent share dropped from 27 percent to 15 percent. China’s inequality levels used to be close to Nordic countries and are now approaching US levels. Source
Inequality in China has been further increasing in China in the last 10 years by all comparable standards. Some numbers for comparison can be found here :https://wid.world/world/#shweal_p90p100_z/US;FR;DE;CN;ZA;GB;WO-PPP;CA/last/eu/k/p/yearly/s/false/37.836/125/curve/false/country
As everyone can see, and as evidenced by a strong body ol research, China is among the least equal societies on the global.
Canada’s Finance Minister says he raised the importance of labour standards during meetings with top Chinese officials
What exactly did he raise? Will Canada improve its laws and ban imports made by forced labour?
That’s literary the number one feature of capitalism. It only benefits the people who have capital …
That’s a widespread misunderstanding. If this were the number one feature of capitalism, then China would be the most capitalistic country worldwide. There is MUCH more inequality in China than anywhere in the West, including Canada. In addition, inequality in China has been increasing in the last decades, particularly in the last 10 years.
Oh, no, there is ample evidence for China being a severe security threat. It’s published in the mainstream Western sources that you read, according to you, “of course”. Just read it. China isn’t a reliable partner, but wumaos have different view.
I don’t hate China. This is a simple fact. Just read the statistics.
I don’t understand why so many people appear to freak out if you criticize China. It seems one can criticize everyone and everything back and forth, but if you are criticizing China you are at least whatabouted to death.
Reading comprehension is an issue, just read my comment above. Here again:
Batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, EVs - all these are no longer just mechanical assets but rather connected systems. These connectivities create new exposure for consumers and governments in democratic states.
As one report, It’s Time to Treat China’s Connected Energy Systems As a National Security Risk, says,
Foreign automakers and energy operators relying on Chinese batteries are not just importing physical components; they are importing foreign-controlled code that dictates how critical assets operate, and that may be updated based on a vendor’s schedules, through vendor platforms, and under vendor policies.
There is ample evidence that China poses a threat to other states’ security, as well as many examples that China uses leverage for economic and political coercion.
Don’t get me wrong, this is a very bad development and it really threatens democracies. But the truth is that wealth inequality is even worse in dictatorships like China or Russia, and it has been widening at an even faster pace than in Canada, Europe and their democratic allies.
So letting others control your energy is bad unless it’s controlled by China? That’s apparently bad faith posts and comments, @yogthos@lemmygrad.ml
Oh, what a carefully selected sample.
The vast majority of these sources provide a very critical picture of China, so if you really read these ‘mainstream Western sources of course’ you must have a very critical picture of China. It doesn’t reflect your propaganda-like posts and comments in this and your alt accounts. But at least here in this thread you have so far refrained from personal insults.
As most of your linked articles refer to Chinese investments in the Global South, there is a very good study from 2025 by the Economic Policy Institute in Kiel, Germany, about that.
Our findings reveal a previously undocumented pattern of revenue ring-fencing, where a significant share of commodity export receipts never reaches the exporting countries. Revenues routed overseas secure priority repayment for the creditor; they remain out of public sight and largely beyond the borrower’s reach until the secured debts are repaid. These findings raise new concerns about debt transparency, fiscal management, fiscal autonomy, and the quality of macroeconomic surveillance, particularly in commodity-exporting EMDEs [emerging market and developing economies].
Interesting investigation that provides new insights how exactly China takes leverage over emerging economies at Beijing’s benefit and Beijing’s benefit alone.
Addition: And, of course, Canada should not buy renewable tech, EVs, and other tech from China. The price of letting others control you energy and you tech is too high. What is true for the U.S. is also true for China. Canada should definitely seek collaboration with democratic states rather than dictatorships.
What sources regarding China do you read?
Batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, EVs - all these are no longer just mechanical assets but rather connected systems. These connectivities create new exposure for consumers and governments in democratic states.
As one report, It’s Time to Treat China’s Connected Energy Systems As a National Security Risk, says,
Foreign automakers and energy operators relying on Chinese batteries are not just importing physical components; they are importing foreign-controlled code that dictates how critical assets operate, and that may be updated based on a vendor’s schedules, through vendor platforms, and under vendor policies.
There is ample evidence that China poses a threat to other states’ security, as well as many examples that China uses leverage for economic and political coercion.
It’s also important to note the risk of forced labour in Chinese suppky chains.
The Iran war shows how risky reliance on oil is.
The same is certainly true for renewables and all other critical parts of the economy.
It’s good that Canada started to build supply chains for critical minerals with democratic allies, for example. The dependence on China here is a threat to Canada’s (and all other allied states’) national security.
[Edit typo.]
The government’s repression and killing is still going on, and it will continue until the regime falls.
Thank you for this sophisticated comment. [/s, just to be safe].
As a European, I am totally convinced it would be much better for the EU too.
I don’t think you read my comment.
Iran do not pose a security threat to Europe either. Even in Ukraine it is no longer the case.
Your comment amounts to nothing but autocratic propaganda as it is outright false. Even Chinese state media is citing Iran, saying Ukraine is a ‘legitimate target,’ and the Chinese government is supporting the Iranian regime as we know. They are explicitly threatening Ukraine.
That aside, Iran already provided weapons to Russia as you say yourself, and it has thus been posing a significant threat to Ukraine and Europe.
I get your point and fully agree. But I have just a nitpick in that everything Trump, Putin, or Xi (and many other ‘world leaders’) do isn’t for their countries or even their peoples but rather for their personal gains, political power, and money. It’s not so much about the US, Russia, China but rather about individual politicians’ interests and their total indifference toward their countries and the people imho.
The EU and the US both have very strong laws banning impirts of goods made by forced labour. Not good enough imho, but, unfortunately, Canadian laws regarding forced labour are much weaker. Canadian PM Carney wants to make the world believe otherwise. He has been widely criticized for this of late.