freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2024 at 8:41pm:


Wrong as usual; both rich and poor in China demanded the government deal with the catastrophic air pollution in China's cities in the 2010's,  a feat it has now achieved - unlike the long suffering citizens in the 'world's largest democracy' (India)...

Quote:


You are dementing again; I already explained the subsidy issues to you - which you blithely ignore without acknowledgement.

Quote:


More  asinine questions which have already been answered  -  the result of your dementia (or crippled brain resulting from ideological blindness). 

Hint: not many Westerners have EVs. 

Quote:


Irrelevant; and for all you know I might indeed be living here, even born here - see how silly you look...

Quote:


Er ...that there is a housing availability and cost of living crisis in Oz, even an high-income MP can't find a rental in WA.

Do try to keep up.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 17^th, 2024 at 1:47pm:


You keep missing the point. I am not asking whether pollution reduction is a worthy goal. I am asking why the CCP came up with a scheme for the poor to subsidise the rich in order to do so. Continually parroting that it was to reduce pollution merely demonstrates your inability to comprehend.

CCP "propaganda"?

Global Times:
NASA plays 'blame-shifting' game with China as lunar soil research set to start

As the US space industry recently faced yet more delays and stagnation with key components including manned spacecraft and space suits "going wrong," NASA has once again resorted to its "sour grapes" rhetoric upon seeing China's successful retrieval of fresh lunar soils from the far side of the moon, by claiming that China did not directly invite its scientists to participate in the lunar soil research.

After the Chang'e-6 samples, weighing nearly 2 kilograms, were safely transported to a special laboratory for further study on Friday, NASA spokesperson Faith McKie told media that while China worked with the European Space Agency, France, Italy and Pakistan on this mission, "NASA wasn't invited to take part in the moon probe."

NASA also didn't get "any direct invitation" to study China's moon rocks, after it welcomed all scientists from around the world to apply to study them, McKie told NatSec Daily.

Responding to the remarks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told the Global Times on Monday that China is open to having space exchanges with the US, and we also welcome countries around the world to take part in the study of lunar samples. "However, the US side seems to have forgotten to mention its domestic legislation such as the Wolf Amendment. The real question is whether US scientists and institutions are allowed by their own government to participate in cooperation with China," Mao said.

"The existence of the Wolf Amendment has basically shut the door to space collaboration between the two countries," Wang Yanan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times on Monday.

Even if research institutions of the US have the willingness to work with China on opportunities such as lunar sample research, institutions there must obtain special approval from the US Congress due to the presence of this amendment, Wang explained. Currently, no such "green light" is in sight from the Congress.

....

So China is to blame?

Such is the capacity of the human brain for self-deception and error; China wanted to join the ISS years ago but was rebuffed by NASA.   

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 5:15am:


No I mean the rich can afford to subsidize the poor, do try to keep up. (Even so, wealth inequality in China is still too high, though not as extreme as the US).

Of course the proper solution is: the money to subsidize the poor  should  come from the Chinese Treasury for free, not by taxing the rich...but China's flat-earth Harvard-trained economists haevn't woken up yet; and  China made lots of money in the course of becoming the world's factory, to enable both rich and poor to rise.   

Quote:


So tax the rich more and the poor less.

Quote:


But China  still makes decisions to fund eg, nuclear power, solar farms in the Gobi desert,  and HS rail all around the nation,  without asking the "permission" of tax-paying citizens. 

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 5:55pm:


Two errors:

1. if the taxation on the poor remains the same, while that on the rich is increased, the rich are subsidizing the poor (in your obsolete mainstream flat-earth economics; the state doesn't NEED taxpayer money (study the MMT thread if you want to be relieved of your flat-earth mainstream economic ideology).

2. China doesn't give handouts to the rich (unlike Oz); the rich in China have gotten wealthy from free market operations, in which successful entrepreneurs corner the massive Chinese market.

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 6:13pm:


By not much. 

Quote:


It is doing neither.

Quote:


China subsidized EV production to hasten transition from polluting ICE imports, it can now subsidize sales to low income workers, by lifting taxes on the wealthy.


Quote:


No I was exposing your errors: China doesn't give handouts to the rich, which is different to subsidizing the EV industry.   

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2024 at 8:44pm:


Less than the rich; you  claimed the poor were subsidizing the rich.

Quote:


Because your incapacitated  "freedom values" brain can't see the diffrence between state subsidization of industry to reduce pollution, and state subsidization of poor people via taxes on the rich.   

Quote:


They won't do any of that; whereas the Oz government refuses to rebuild it public housing stock resulting in the current housing affordabilty crisis.

Quote:


They could, if (as I recommend, given the US/EU's  fear of competition from better-value Chinese EVs), the state subsidized purchase of EVs by poor people.


Quote:


Another remarkbly stupid question from your crippled 'freedom values' brain: Chinese EV pricing  starts at $10,000 in China, an average annual income.   

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2024 at 2:30pm:


More back-to-front nonsense from a "freedom values", survival of the fittest, blind ideologue. 

Countries impose  taxes to pay for government services; economic justice requires higher taxes on the wealthy, so that the government can fund necessary public services - and maybe subsidize the poor, and /or certain nation building industries which the market won't build without subsidies. 

Meanwhile the Oz government  thinks giving the highest 20% of earners (over $200k) c. $4k in stage-3  tax breaks, while giving back $500 to those on $45k is somehow economic justice, when those below the Henderson poverty line who are living on the dole get nothing.

Quote:


No; because you reckon government subsidizing the poor means the poor are subsidizing the rich, see your ridiculous comment in #455:

"So where does the money come from then? Are you suggesting the CCP could subsidise the rich without limit and it would not take anything from the poor?"

LIke I said, the money (for subsidization of the poor) COULD come from the nation's Treasury (for free; see MMT), or - under present mainstream, flat-earth monetary arrangements, from taxing the rich more. 

Quote:


Indeed, you claimed the opposite: that government subsidizing purchase of EVs by low income groups  amounts to the poor subsidizing the rich, because the poor in China "can't afford EVs".

I already told you EVs are within range of the poor in China, since prices for the cheapest EVs in China start aroung 40k yuan  (equal to c. Oz $10k).

A small subsidy for the poor would clinch the deal for lower wage earners, and not cost the rich too much in higher taxes. 

[Av. wage in China is around Oz $16k/yr.)   

Over to you: the workings of your "freedom values" brain are wondrous to behold.