Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Duterte does not have that much capability to do so, normally China wouldn't but they've got loads of Chinese soldiers on those islands. Murrica could sekritly give Phillipinos some shekels and materiel so they can launch an attack, which if succeeded would allow the Phillipinos to not have China control their waters wouldn't it?

[Sheb]

China wouldn't let a second-rate power like the Philipines humiliate it so, and Duterte has been relatively reasonable regarding dealing with China.

[martinuzz]

China wouldn't let a second-rate power like the Philipines humiliate it so, and Duterte has been relatively reasonable regarding dealing with China.

Yeah, even though it was the Phillipines that went to the Court of Arbitrage in the first place, that was not Duterte's Phillipines, that was during it's previous government.

[Sheb]

And that was a relatively tame move. China had long announced it would not recognize the ruling, so it's just propaganda and vying for a better negotiating position, not anything that will lead to hostilities right now.

[martinuzz]

China might not recognize it, but other countries will. It might lead to trade boycots, and will hurt China's maritime trading.

[Jimmy]

Nobody's ever boycotting chinese goods. For starters, many cheap consumer goods are manufactured with cheap chinese labour, and second, China holds a lot of other country's debts.

[Sheb]

Yeah, and no one care enough for a full scale boycott, but it might lead to a ban on cooperating with companies operating there, or at least to ban Western companies for exploiting the local ressources in partnership with China.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Nobody's ever boycotting chinese goods. For starters, many cheap consumer goods are manufactured with cheap chinese labour, and second, China holds a lot of other country's debts.

I heard companies are moving to Vietnam, due to knockoffs, and Chinese prosperity causing an increase in labor costs.

[Culise]

Nobody's ever boycotting chinese goods. For starters, many cheap consumer goods are manufactured with cheap chinese labour, and second, China holds a lot of other country's debts.

I heard companies are moving to Vietnam, due to knockoffs, and Chinese prosperity causing an increase in labor costs.

They are.  In addition to Vietnam, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Latin America, and Kenya have all been beneficiaries to a greater or lesser degree as well; India could, if it got its legal and political affairs in order, but folk have been talking about that since the 70s or 80s, I believe.  The problem is that China has a tremendous population as well which means quite a lot of available workers in absolute numbers; all of these combined barely come close to matching China alone, I believe from off the top of my head.  If you can staff ten factories in China but only five in Nicaragua, it may seem more efficient to keep all of your business in one country rather than dealing with two.  As well, those who have already invested in creating significant working relationships with partners in China will need to also consider the costs of creating new relationships in other countries should they transfer their business to cheaper countries, which may make the costs of that transfer greater than the costs of just accepting rising wages in China for now.

[Loud Whispers]

Also as labour costs rise, normally a country would be able to transition easily out of an industrial economy to a high-skills post-industrial one, but a lot of the well-educated and wealthy Chinese are just moving abroad to work in Western nations, bringing all their skills and capital with them away

[martinuzz]

In response to the court's ruling, China has threatened to instate a "Defense zone" for all air traffice over the entire South Chinese Sea.
I guess now we wait for the US to defy that by sending aircraft in, again.

The Chinese state news used 16 minutes to cover the item, with a 32 page powerpoint presentation showing legal and historical facts, arguments and points of view about the issue, accompanied by images of Chinese navy vessels firing rockets, and beautiful coral reefs.

[MarcAFK]

That's a warcrime firing beautiful coral reefs from naval vessels.

[martinuzz]

Did I get the oxford comma wrong there?

This suddenly made me want to see coral reefs on DF's ocean floors.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

This suddenly made me want to see coral reefs on DF's ocean floors.

Yes.

[Culise]

Did I get the oxford comma wrong there?

This suddenly made me want to see coral reefs on DF's ocean floors.

Technically yes insofar as the Oxford comma wasn't called for at all there, but it only would have helped his joke if you'd done it right, and I suspect it would have made the sentence even more obtuse to write it grammatically properly.  Specifically, you have two lists of two items each: (32 page powerpoint presentation showing legal and historical facts) and (arguments and points of view about the issue), and images of (Chinese navy vessels firing rockets) and (beautiful coral reefs).  Because each list is only two items, they wouldn't ordinarily be separated by commas, Oxford or otherwise, but then you end up with "legal and historical facts and arguments and points of view", which is a rather fun little train wreck of a clause, and "firing rockets and beautiful coral reefs," which is the perfect set-up for Marc's punchline.