Search results

Property tax will be introduced in time. And renting is considerably less costly than owning, leaving renter with more disposable income. With a more significant drop in home ownership rate, maybe the concept of owning a unit will eventually becoming less pervasive. Think of housing price in...

Good. Chinese home ownership rate is at 90%, far too high compared to the 65% in the US. It makes perfect sense for people to start renting property instead.

No. PCA know the difference between right and title very well. Unfortunately, they don't have jurisdiction over title, so they have to misinterpret Chinese claim as right in order to make a ruling. One doesn't need to be a lawyer to know what's stated by the claimant and what's stated by the...

I'm sure people complies with the ruling means it's pointless. Now, that's a stupid argument. And you forgot your argument is that the WTO ruling is pointless because countries do not abide by it. PCA arbitration is full of holes as it is an actual arbitration that lacks jurisdiction based on...

The pretext of Russian invasion mirrored the same one used by NATO in the Kosovo war. It was never about sovereignty, but rather both were fought over NATO eastward expansion, one to enforce the expansion, the other trying to halt it. Why do you think China fought the Korean War? With NATO...

Seriously? Remember Kosovo? Since when does EU care about sovereignty.

So China shouldn't lifted its zero-covid policy? What were telegraph and every other western media saying about the zero-covid policy 2 weeks ago? Do these people ever look back at what they wrote?

If it's all about capability, then EU would not have sanctioned Russia oil & gas seeing how they backfired. In desperate attempt to hold onto its position as the global hegemony, US is throwing its allies under the bus.

You are the one arguing over semantics. If you know how WTO resolve issue, then you know there are plenty of countries who have complied with WTO ruling to call it pointless. And if your wife is an international lawyer, you would have kept quiet about the PCA ruling, as it is full of holes.

60%? 90% needs to be infected to achieve herd immunity. It’s by popular demand, so whatever happens, the government doesn’t need to do jack.

Again far from pointless, many countries have abided by the WTO ruling and complied with WTO recommendations. I suggest you go and check the WTO cases resolutions. And no, China does not lecture any country on the so call rule based order, so the condition of “do as I say” simply doesn’t exist.

The US has sanctioned over 20 countries. Have all these countries conducted hostile actions against the US? I see majority of countries rather than lining up in one bloc or the other, seek a balanced relationship instead.

There is a significant difference where China uses economic sanctions in retaliation to hostile action while the US use these tools to dictate others policies across the board. The difference is not lost on most nations.

Far from pointless, the behavior of "do as I say, not as I do" is for all to see. That's the entire point of filing the case as HK does not at all expect the US to abide by the ruling.

Why is enforcement even in the discussion? This has nothing to do with enforcement. It's about rules that every country in the WTO agreed upon that the US refused to honor while lecturing others to abide by these same rules. Enforcement or the lack of is completely beside the point. Now the...

Lol. Hey, how many time did the US administration use the term RULE BASE ORDER when it describe WTO trade regime? Here is an excerpt from the US executive office of the president. "The United States is an original member of the WTO and a steadfast supporter of the rules-based multilateral...

This is actually a good lesson for countries around the world who value their independence to not rely on the US technology.

Yet again completely miss the point of the contradiction in US action and its so called rule based order. All international agreements are based on enforcement by member states themselves as there is no global enforcement mechanism for anything. If a minor state refuse to adhere to WTO ruling...

‘The World Trade Organization ruled that the US government’s requirement that Hong Kong-made goods be labeled “Made in China” is unwarranted and violates international regulations.’ The WTO ruling on the dispute is based on existing regulations, and the WTO did say it "violates international...

‘The World Trade Organization ruled that the US government’s requirement that Hong Kong-made goods be labeled “Made in China” is unwarranted and violates international regulations.’ Next, you'll be arguing regulation is not law.