By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Would China rather have Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton as president?
Probably Hilary. Hilary Clinton is very much a status-quo, establishment person. She is unlikely, for example, to pursue protectionist trade policies which would harm China's ability to export cheap goods to the US market. Business-as-usual, everybody can keep making money the way they've been making money for the past few decades.
Sanders on the other hand is more of a wildcard. You never know with a guy like him if he'd start pushing for populist trade policies to make imported crap less attractive in the US, hurting chinese exports in the process. I mean it's an open question what he would (and could) actually do if elected but much less predictable than Hilary. Predictable is good for business.
I'm not staking my own position on this (i'm pro-sanders btw) but just from China's interest perspective I think they'd want anybody but trump or sanders...just because from their viewpoint those guys are wildcards. And the "establishment" candidates are mostly known quantities.
coineineagh:
there is no uncertainty about it. Sanders believes America's trade policy with China has been disastrous for jobs at home on multiple levels, and will actively try to end the Most Favoured Nation status, which also allows China to import its crap for cheaper than many western countries. Hillary is a bought and paid for face, policies open to the highest bidder. There is more "uncertainty" with Hillary, because we don't know who bought which opinion this time around, or whether she might cave to public pressure. Sanders is a leader with a sense of direction. I have to say, if you're going to vote for the guy, take a moment to watch a few of his speeches, then you'll know more than the vague newsmedia impressions, like that 'wildcard' BS.
expatlife26:
Sanders is less of a wild card about what he wants to do, that is to say I believe he's a man of some consicience.
But it remains to be seen what he could get done. He may well set out to change America's trade policy significantly but whether he could succeed is an open question.
Dont get me wrong I'd love to see some old fashioned protectionism.
coineineagh:
protectionism means making import taxes so exorbitant that foreign goods become unable to compete. i know american polarized language has labeled *any* taxation as gov't oppression, but there is a healthy and normal balance between free trade and protectionism. The idea should be: Foreign goods are only worthwhile to import if they are still profitable after a moderate tax. Otherwise we'd be shipping goods all across the world for margin profits (goods that the import country can easily make too), which is often the case with the cheap crap China has been exporting. There would also be a lot less outsoucing of jobs if the goods that had to be shipped home, had some taxation on them. As it stands now, it's US wages vs China wages, and no extenuating factors to favour home manufacturing.
ambivalentmace:
the chinese do owe a favor or two to the clintons for selling missile guidance technology from Loral systems through the commerce department to get around department of defense rules against selling military technology, maybe its time to cash in the favor with more money order sequenced anonymous campaign contributions again from a chinese businessman. pull out the old playbook and do the same thing again, but the favorite all time still goes to obama, 200 million in contributions of amounts under 200 dollars non reportable from credit card holders with out an american address for whatever foreign influence was being paid for, and nobody still knows where the money came from, a real professional, dont think anybody will ever beat that political feat, not sure he even knows, but somebody pulling the strings, probably harry reid did the ultimate anonymous scam in the american history of politics, guiness book of world records needs to reserve a spot for that one.
I think, the biggest obstacle would be 'not the same spoken language'. It's fairly safe to say Chinese wouldn't fancy 'none'.
Probably Hilary. Hilary Clinton is very much a status-quo, establishment person. She is unlikely, for example, to pursue protectionist trade policies which would harm China's ability to export cheap goods to the US market. Business-as-usual, everybody can keep making money the way they've been making money for the past few decades.
Sanders on the other hand is more of a wildcard. You never know with a guy like him if he'd start pushing for populist trade policies to make imported crap less attractive in the US, hurting chinese exports in the process. I mean it's an open question what he would (and could) actually do if elected but much less predictable than Hilary. Predictable is good for business.
I'm not staking my own position on this (i'm pro-sanders btw) but just from China's interest perspective I think they'd want anybody but trump or sanders...just because from their viewpoint those guys are wildcards. And the "establishment" candidates are mostly known quantities.
coineineagh:
there is no uncertainty about it. Sanders believes America's trade policy with China has been disastrous for jobs at home on multiple levels, and will actively try to end the Most Favoured Nation status, which also allows China to import its crap for cheaper than many western countries. Hillary is a bought and paid for face, policies open to the highest bidder. There is more "uncertainty" with Hillary, because we don't know who bought which opinion this time around, or whether she might cave to public pressure. Sanders is a leader with a sense of direction. I have to say, if you're going to vote for the guy, take a moment to watch a few of his speeches, then you'll know more than the vague newsmedia impressions, like that 'wildcard' BS.
expatlife26:
Sanders is less of a wild card about what he wants to do, that is to say I believe he's a man of some consicience.
But it remains to be seen what he could get done. He may well set out to change America's trade policy significantly but whether he could succeed is an open question.
Dont get me wrong I'd love to see some old fashioned protectionism.
coineineagh:
protectionism means making import taxes so exorbitant that foreign goods become unable to compete. i know american polarized language has labeled *any* taxation as gov't oppression, but there is a healthy and normal balance between free trade and protectionism. The idea should be: Foreign goods are only worthwhile to import if they are still profitable after a moderate tax. Otherwise we'd be shipping goods all across the world for margin profits (goods that the import country can easily make too), which is often the case with the cheap crap China has been exporting. There would also be a lot less outsoucing of jobs if the goods that had to be shipped home, had some taxation on them. As it stands now, it's US wages vs China wages, and no extenuating factors to favour home manufacturing.
ambivalentmace:
the chinese do owe a favor or two to the clintons for selling missile guidance technology from Loral systems through the commerce department to get around department of defense rules against selling military technology, maybe its time to cash in the favor with more money order sequenced anonymous campaign contributions again from a chinese businessman. pull out the old playbook and do the same thing again, but the favorite all time still goes to obama, 200 million in contributions of amounts under 200 dollars non reportable from credit card holders with out an american address for whatever foreign influence was being paid for, and nobody still knows where the money came from, a real professional, dont think anybody will ever beat that political feat, not sure he even knows, but somebody pulling the strings, probably harry reid did the ultimate anonymous scam in the american history of politics, guiness book of world records needs to reserve a spot for that one.
clinton wont even be in the race after dhed indicted for perjury conspiracy of running a criminal organzation lieing to the courts unsecure servers extortion she should be getting ready fo r the federal penitentary
expatlife26:
You think a powerful person is going to get in trouble for something?
It's all just political point scoring. I'm no big fan of hilary clinton but I don't believe for one second that the people calling for her head wouldn't be saying it's "no big deal" if a prominent republican had a private email server.
ambivalentmace:
i dont think obama will let charges come up against her unless bernie starts to win this show and jeopardize his legacy, then he may throw her under the bus and try to bring a ringer like biden to stop bernie, but if clinton is winning, obama will the stop or delay the legal show, which will make the landslide against the left just more sweet, he is an idealist more than a statesman, the sad thing is if he does the right thing and prosecutes her, he may actually have a legacy the has some positive points, but maybe he will like sitting in a corner with jimmy carter for a time out for the ages, jimmy has been lonely lately.
sanders would be cheaper on the bribes, i dont think he has a clinton foundation shaking down other countries for access and favors and he probably want live to finish the first term anyway, the rinos want give him much cooperation anyway, would be a nice stalemate for 4 years. the best government in the world, one that does not pass laws and screw with the people more than they already do,
expatlife26:
yeah that's what I worry about with sanders, he's so argumentative that I would question his ability to actually accomplish anything.
Not that congress has been in any way functional since I've been old enough to vote.
ambivalentmace:
i firmly believe if either party had complete control of congress, they would be telling us what to eat, what to study, how much sleep to get, what car to drive, if its a stalemate, at least i can sleep and not worry about neighbor claiming my snoring is noise pollution violating his freedoms or some ahole in california telling me not to smoke in my own car. i dont smoke but if you want to smoke and kill yourself, by all means, light up, how much money is the cigarette ban in prisons gonna cost in prisoner life expectancy rising and more food and prisons built and higher cost. let them smoke, cancer treatments are short term costs for a dead man. no matter what your politics are, please keep government out of my f*ing life.
expatlife26:
Totally agree that whichever side is dominant...especially culturally you get the self-righteous moral majority types dictating to everybody else what the correct opinions are.
When I was a kid it was the religious right that was the problem, imposing their values on everybody else and then you get the joiners...you know the self-righteous do nothings who latch on to the moral majority people. When I younger those people were the heartland evangelicals and their ilk.
Now the self righteous do nothings are the progressive liberals. And they are just as bad about thinking they are 100% right all the time and as vicious as the evangelicals were back when evangelicals were the problem. I agree with more of what progressive liberals (gay marriage is A-OK in my book) say than evangelicals who I have virtually nothing in common with but that doesn't mean a lot of the progressives aren't total pieces of sh*t who will ruin the lives of decent people because they hold the wrong opinion.
Regarding your comments on the 1% in NYC and their tax burden. You're obviously much more conservative than I am and i'm curious what you think the solution to that is. I mean a lot of those high earners in NYC are working on wall street...fund managers and the like. Where else are they going to live in a lot of cases. I agree there shouldn't be any talk of punitive taxation or sense that they are scumbags because they are successful. That's bunk, but what are the other options? Tax the middle class more and destroy the purchasing power which makes businesses profitable (those real estate holdings aren't worth as much if the average white collars can't afford $5000/mth in rent)? Just have everything public suck (including infrastructure...theres more to public spending than entitlements) because it's not funded?
I try to keep my own opinions strictly rational and not ideological. When I hear the argument that if we tax the rich more than they'll just leave and stop trying I just don't see that. People who are rich are either doing something specifically lucrative like high finance or entertainment which ties them to a market or they own interests in valuable businesses. Somebody that owns a profitable enterprise may have a compelling reason to be hands-on with it. You turn it over to management with no skin in the game are they going to crack the whip like you would so you can move to the Bahamas? Maybe yes, maybe no. What if you're a partner is a high powered professional services firm? You can move to Tennessee where the taxes are low and make way less money because there isn't the demand there for high-priced litigation teams. Theres a reason that the "best states for business" are always the poor ones. They HAVE to have super low taxes or they'd have nothing. There is money to be made in NY and CA so they have the leverage to charge higher taxes. You want to be where there is demand for a high-end law firm to make millions you gotta pay taxes. Cost of doing business where the business is good.
One thing about the arch-conservative argument against taxing high earners at all is what I think is the ludicrous argument that it would stifle all innovation and that rich people would just shut down their businesses. I personally think it's insane to think a guy running a mid size construction company in Indiana or something calling it quits because his taxes go up. Owning a construction firm is not an innovative or unique skill. One guy exits the market in protest to taxes, some brave soul will be willing to step up and take over the market.
They can go Galt all they want but in most cases somebody else will step up. If there genuinely is not a construction firm serving an area in which there is demand for building somebody with initiative will go to the bank with a solid business plan and get a loan to start up a firm to meet the demand. What will never happen is that everyone in the town wanting new construction will just go wanting and wishing they hadn't taxed away kindly old Mr. Jones of Jones Building. Where there's demand, somebody will meet it. That's capitalism, baby. And it's a beautiful thing.
ambivalentmace:
i do think the rich should pay a higher portion, but rich people have budgets also, if you raise the 50 percent to 70 or 75, they dont buy the yacht that a 100 jobs was going to build, only 30 percent of consumer spending is done by the top 10 percent.
i think a sales tax system with a rebate to the poor paid monthly is a much better system.
i really dont think its the governments business at all what i or anybody else makes for earnings, privacy issue to me, but if going to do it, pick a fair number and stick with it and not come back for more every few years. the rich pay 60 percent and an additional 15 percent during war time, and this will be the law for next 50 years. fine, and if cant budget on that, dont come crying for more.
the problem i have with rich liberals is that snob better than thou attitude that says working man, you pay through the nose, you never get to be rich and have a yacht next to mine, i am better than you and know whats best for you. i may be wrong but i dont get that snob attitude from rich conservatives. i dont see myself as a republican at all, i havent liked anybody since reagan, except newt gingrich, a personal friend and a great historical writer, some bias for my history professor, but not as good as peter lawler, when i ran a company and lost 60 percent because of taxes being single and the taxes i paid with my company, i just sat down one day and said it's not worth being productive for this money, i sold everything and gave up on the american dream, whether im paying for someones healthcare or education on one end, or financing a war on the other end, i dont want to pay and play,screw it, i quit, i sold the business, the house, the car and now watch the opportunity to get ahead for the next generation become even more difficult than i bitched about in my youth. i dont know the answer,its just a sad never ending story to the bottom.
expatlife26:
Hey thanks for writing back. Interesting points I like debating with smart people on politics and seldom get the chance to.
Totally agree with you that smugness is probably the least attractive human quality. And that's the problem right now with tons of liberals, this sense that "i have the right opinions therefore I am a good person even though I'm a judgmental prick". That attitude is what I hated about the religious right when I was a kid and I hate it in the progressive left just as much as a young adult.
Yeah the system is broken. Where i think the biggest moral hazard now with regards to policy is on having both a welfare state and open immigration policies. Can't have both and stay functional for long. Because it creates a situation where there are special interest groups for which every new mouth to feed is just another customer for them. And it doesn't matter if the money they spend comes from the dole, because every working schmuck has to pay in but only a select few get to profit from public housing construction contracts and transfer payments for consumer goods.
That select few gets to externalize the costs of having to support more ESL classes over programs to accelerate smart achiever kids in public schools, the burden of increased crime and the social costs of letting in people from parts of the world that don't share our values. Theres no immediate cost to some guy living in a nice gated community whose kids go to private school in importing a bunch of jobless, unskilled young men with nothing to do. Most of them would want to work and mind their business, but the bad ones that don't will only affect weaker americans not the rich guy in the gated community.
And those are gonna the people who promote and spread the idea that if you're against immigration you're a racist, privileged piece of sh*t.
Like somehow taking in refugees is the only place where we're not allowed to be selfish. Homelessness? "That's fine, they just didn't try hard enough. No such thing as a free lunch I say!" Student debt? "You should have thought of that before you picked a stupid major, son! Nobody gets a free ride!" Not taking in north african refugees? "What? How dare you! You racist son of a bitch! We have an obligation!
Well wtf? If that's how it is than why don't we have an obligation to take care of the people who don't benefit any special interest groups? All of a sudden we have this moral obligation to support a certain group of people but f*ck the other groups of people who aren't new customers for big businesses? If we're going to pursue the agenda of helping people where we able to, should immigrants be the priority over existing, impoverished US citizens?
I'm not saying that as a prosperous country it's not in our best interest to provide help to anybody, but it's insane that on this one issue no dissent is allowed or you're branded a bad person.
Expatlife26 nailed it. Including being for Bernie. Hillary is feeling the Bern now, we will see how she changes her position now that the first test of support is a tie.
1% ers , That's you Trump, Feel the Bern yet????
ambivalentmace:
what happens when all the 1 percenters leave the country and go somewhere else. 47000 high wage earners in new york city fund 75 percent of the nyc budget, why these 47000 people dont move and still live in new york and get cussed out for being rich all the time, i dont know why they stay, possibly stupidity, but if america becomes a large new york city for how money is allocated, i guess i should just go ahead and burn my passport, im not giving half my money to anybody, i would rather not work at all and live off the rich until it crashes and then find another foolish country doing the same thing and move there. if clinton does not get the black vote in south carolina, bernie has the nomination and this contest is over on the left. bernie had no name recognition, no money, no political organization and he still tied, i love chaos, the clinton political machine is a fast declining depreciating asset, may it rust soon.
coineineagh:
those 47000 probably can't reallocate because they have profitable businesses that require them to stay in NYC. they don't stay out of national loyalty, nostalgic benevolence or whatever noble trait you characterize them with. and even among a lot of them, the opinions are divided about whether the era of Bush tax cuts should ever have been extended. trickle down economics is BS, and everyone sees the harm that low taxation has done.
expatlife26:
yeah i mentioned on another thread that a good many of those people can't just leave. If you're a hedge fund manager on wall street you have to live there. Same as if you own a modeling agency or TV studio. Plus NYC certainly has its charms, especially for the wealthy.
I dunno, I just always thought that idea that we need to coddle the rich cause they are doing us this big favor is a fallacy. Most businesses do not run on innovation. Customers create jobs.
Clinton's backers are in bed with the Chinese so Clinton is the obvious choice.
Clinton's bombed the chinese embassy in Bosnia. Good strong arm tactic there.
Come on, American expats. Don't any of you know anything? Oh, you guys can't watch Late Show or Last Week Tonight behind the Great Firewall. No YT. OK, too bad then.
Sanders is neither a wildcard nor easy to bribe. The argumentative thing may be a good point, but he's been in the senate for decades. He knows how the game is played.
expatlife26:
What I meant by wildcard isn't that he is inconsistent in terms of what he says he'll do. I believe he is who he says he is for better or worse.
It's that the results of him doing things to remove MFN status from PRC trade are unpredictable. Any time you have a major sea change there are going to be winners and losers and with the law of unintended consequences it's not always possible to predict the outcome.
Anybody that is basically doing well now is going to have the attitude of don't rock the boat. Hillary isn't going to rock the boat, therefore entrenched interests will favor her. That's my point here not that Bernie Sanders is inconsistent.
coineineagh:
he has seen how the system works in his decades in the senate. i don't think he will randomly pull strings to see what happens; he has an idea what the (un)intended consequences may be. the boat needs to be rocked, as the voters make very clear with their support. if anyone can do it right,it's him.
The rich 1% has already traveled and lived anywhere they like or want. They choose to live wherever, because they can. Guess what? They are still in the USA!
Now how about the corporations, like GE, they have paid ZERO thats 0 in taxes for years. You think that the US Corps will leave and the people who run them?
Corps are like drug dealers, take one out and there's another to come in as long as there is a demand.
They can be that way because somehow the US courts said they are people too.
Bernie wants to change that. Back to as it used to be. When people were people, not stock market paper people.
Feel the Bern, you money masters!!
Which candidate would be most harmful for China?
I'm voting for that person.
coineineagh:
ahem, Trump has business ties (customers) with China. He talks big but he'll do nothing.
Actually, I'd say at the moment, China would prefer Xi over both of them.
And, cos they're both Americans - and not Chinese - I'm pretty sure they're not even able to become president here...
All that aside - do you think Bernie or Hilary would even want to become president of China?
Assuming either was actually a likely choice for China's next president (sounds like a great game show just waiting to happen!), obviously, the conservative right-wing militarists who keep saying China's feelings get hurt as they tactlessly ignore international conventions is obviously right up Clinton's alley! The left-winger more democratic and progressive parts of the CCP would be pushing for Bernie. Li Keqiang - would that be their running partner?? And would they have to come along as well?
(You did mean president of China - no?? Or were you thinking, Bernie or Hilary as president of... Mexico? )
coineineagh:
har dee har har! actually, the topic obviously implies that either Clinton or Sanders become class president of your favourite class… unless it refers to boy scout president, or little league team president.
