even if they don’t falsely report they can omit information
That's why you always read the reports from all perspectives to fill in the gaps. You literally discount the "our freedom fighters" vs. "Their terrorists" speak yourself, instead of your convenient solution of appealing to mbfc (appeal to authority)
In these cases it’s better as a rule to compare the reporting with that of other sources.
It would be great if you actually lived by your own words and engaged with the topic at hand and not lazily cite mbfc.
It’s no longer glorious to get rich in China — it’s dangerous
FT
Opinion Chinese business & finance
It’s no longer glorious to get rich in China — it’s dangerous
Why no one wants to be the nation’s top tycoon any more
> Last month, Colin Huang, founder of ecommerce powerhouse PDD, attracted the usual headlines when he rose to become China’s richest man. But shortly after, PDD surprised investors with a downbeat profit forecast. Its stock plummeted. Huang lost $14bn overnight, and ceded the top spot to Zhong Shanshan, founder of beverage giant Nongfu Spring. Within 24 hours, Nongfu Spring issued its own unexpectedly depressing outlook, and Zhong, too, soon slipped from first place on the rich lists.
> On Chinese social media, chatter broke out about whether corporate leaders might be competitively devaluing their own stock prices to avoid the widening crackdown on excessive wealth, which is a centrepiece of leader Xi Jinping’s “common prosperity” campaign. It is not implausible to conclude, wrote one Wall Street broker, that “nobody wants to be the richest man in China” at a time when its government is turning more assertively socialist.
> Whatever the true motive for these profit warnings, the way they were spun on Chinese social media reflects a real change in the national zeitgeist. When Deng Xiaoping became paramount leader in the late 1970s, he defanged the old Maoist hostility to wealth creation. To get rich would be “glorious” in his increasingly capitalist nation.
> But there was a catch. It was glorious to get rich — just not too rich. China was generating far more wealth than other developing countries, yet its largest individual fortunes remained modest compared with those in much smaller economies, including Nigeria and Mexico. Even during the roaring boom of the 2000s, an unwritten cap seemed to remain: no single fortune would rise much higher than $10bn. China’s billionaire list was also unusual for the high rate of churn in its top ranks.
> By the early 2010s, at least two tycoons had seen their net worth approach that decabillion-dollar barrier, only to land in jail on corruption charges instead. That is not to say the charges were baseless, only that the choice of targets did appear to reflect a lingering, levelling tendency among China’s leaders.
> That instinct flowered anew under Xi. Coming to power in 2012, he launched a campaign against corruption that reached deep into the elite. The early targets were often public sector bigwigs — bureaucrats, Communist party princelings. With China’s economy slowing, the regime seemed reluctant to scare the one private-sector goose still laying golden eggs: big tech companies. Over the years, many Chinese would build fortunes bigger than $10bn. The first three to breach that threshold, and keep rising, were tech industry founders led by Jack Ma of Alibaba.
> This quiet tolerance would turn in 2020, during the stimulus-driven market boom. China added nearly 240 billionaires — twice as many as the US — but late that same year Ma made a speech that helped bring this party to a halt. In a guarded but unmistakable critique, Ma questioned the direction of Communist party rule, warning that overregulation threatened to slow tech innovation, and that Chinese banks suffered from “pawnshop thinking”.
>State retaliation was swift. Alibaba’s share price collapsed. Ma tumbled down the rich lists and dropped out of public view. Early the next year, Xi launched his common prosperity campaign and the crackdown spread to any company deemed out of step with its egalitarian values.
> In this new era, it’s dangerous to get too rich. Stories abound of the state launching investigations against this business figure or that financier. The pressure is drying up venture capital funds, scaring the young away from lucrative professions such as investment banking. The number of millionaires leaving China has been rising and peaked last year at 15,000 — dwarfing the exodus from any other nation.
> The private sector is in retreat. Since 2021, the stock market has been sliding, but state companies have grown their share of total market cap by more than a third to nearly 50 per cent. China now has the world’s only major stock market in which state-owned companies are valued on par with those in the private sector. Individual fortunes have shrunk dramatically over the past three years; the number of billionaires has fallen 35 per cent in China, even as it rose 12 per cent in the rest of the world.
> China’s super-rich increasingly choose to lie low. Become the richest tycoon in the US and you might launch your own space programme. In India, you might throw gazillion-dollar weddings for your children. In China, you might look for a way to lose your new title — and the target on your back.
Pretty good tbh. I was torn between Zorin, PopOS and Mint and settled Zorin because it also syncs nice with Graphene/Android via the App. You can choose between Mac, Windows and other type of Desktop looks and don't need an Terminal if you don't want to
Yeah, fuck Harris (And Trump).
OP implied Capitalism isn't the economic base of fascism, the way I read it and were I'm responding to.
The naming of something decides the nature of the thing
Lol
So where does capitalism comes from?
Volkswagen, Siemens, IBM, Hugo Boss, and many others. Also socialists known to like privatization, not like the Nazis invented that, rightt?
IBM, IG Farben, Coca Cola, Hugo Boss, Volkswagen, Krupp, and many others were just doing regular business. And "privatization" definitely wasn't something invented by the Nazis. Got it.
When you are concern trolling about a characters sexual orientation in the movie sub, then you had it coming.
If you indeed asked in good faith, then there's a appeal process. Remember to more carefully word your questions pertaing to sexual minorities.
Sovereign countries can’t choose their allies? Really? When long-time neutral countries have decided that not even being neutral will protect them anymore from invasion, your answer is that they should be invaded?
History started only in the 2000s for you. I understand.
You don’t care about the invaded people.
Putting just randomly invading Ukraine. No interests, no security concerns, no geopolitics involved, am I right?
Oh so you don’t care about the people then, got it.
Oh so you don’t care about Israelis, just letting the Palestinians take hostages, got it.
Can you explain why supporting US interests in the middle east is bad (among others arms sales in "Israel"), but supporting US interests in Ukraine (arms sales, privatization) is good somehow?
Free Palestine, Fuck NATO.
I did you even acknowledged the example of banning beards but then pretend like you weren’t given evidence.
I acknowledged it, by telling you to focus on proving cultural genocide in the first place. No, targeting bearded people that espouse violent Muslim interpretations of Islam in order to "correct" their beliefs to non violent interpretation does not constitute cultural genocide (even if wasnt fully informed on the targeting of ideologically violent bearded people. That maybe constituting racial profiling, but not cultural genocide)
No there aren’t.
There are like this source BE uses https://medium.com/@sunfeiyang/breaking-down-the-bbcs-visit-to-hotan-xinjiang-e284934a7aab
denying the Genocide
Nothing to deny. You haven't proved it.
Another argument debunked another goalpost moved.
You haven't addressed how you can see arabic everywhere, uyghur being an official language, and that there's a shitton of mosques there and how it constitutes cultural genocide. If you culture is to stab people, then fuck your culture.
Far too much evidence to deny
Far little context taken into account
the person which just spent time reading your worthless links is now ‘not serious’.
No because if youd have looked at the "worthless" link you'd know that the primary sources BE provides are contextualized there already.
You have to prove cultural genocide is happening, not the ban of beards. Put your efford there.
Yes there are. The heavy military guarding around the area is what’s very noteworthy.
Heavily militarized synagogues in western countries means that it's with the knowledge of "the genocide in palestine" and pretty obvious there's something fishy going on. This is what I mean with gradual crackdown on religion. Sorry I cannot take you serious here.
Your link wants to reference article 14 which focuses on re-education but the preceding one doesn’t look great
What's your approach on how to deal with people that go stabbing people around them and are supported by your geopolitical rival?
BadEmpanada A single testimony
I'm going to take you even less serious now and choose not to continue this conversation anymore.
Classifying parts of religion you don’t like because you have to “combat terrorism” and assimilate your colonized population… where have I heard that one before…
Condoning radical parts of religion because forbidding them reminds of the cultural genocide that's happening at home
And making it look like a classic Chinese temple instead of an Uyghur one? Cultural preservation in full force.
Imagine the headlines if left alone and the collapsing building kills a worshiper
Wearing a long beard? Terrorism!
The less radical Imam not falling into the western narrative in the video you linked to says that no religious repression is happening and denies that beards are banned. BBC provides no evidence and just points at a random ripped paper and says beards are banned because it says so there lol Instead you link me a video showing me how it even contradicts yourself. How do you like the timestamp, where the youtuber "sees 4-5 mosques just walking around the city center" and concludes "you can't say that there aren't any mosques here". Which he concludes the same thing again further down the video you posted. https://youtu.be/dHxzLogzqkU?feature=shared&t=2085
How do you not see the contradiction, that you say cultural genocide, yet you can see arabic written all over the buildings in your own provided link? Poor guy couldnt fly his drone over the mosque. Have you tried flying a drone over a synagogue in any western country?
At least read the context I provided you earlier https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang
Cultural Genocide is not equal to full on literal israel style delete everyone you don’t like.
Not what I was saying. I was saying that the same voices that say a "cultural genocide" is happening in China, are saying no genocide (not cultural, but the actual extermination of people) is happening in Palestine.
Altering appearances of mosques to make them appear Chinese is an incredibly visually obvious step to slow-boiling the frog.
Or you know, altering the building in a way it doesn't crash on its worshipers i.e. renovating.
Sinicization involves aligning religion to Chinese culture, and can also extend to adherence to the nation’s political ideology and rules.
Like any fucking religion has to adhere to their host country. Basically it means if your interpretation of Islam is some radical shit where go stab random ass people you can get lost like they did with the western backed ETIM (Based)
Also you seem to have a very narrow understanding of culture. You haven't addressed even how the language and cultural practices aren't banned. Slow boiling the frog my ass