TPP Trade Deal: Gains and challenges for Asia-Pacific countries

[tranquilium]

You do realise that I’m not arguing whether those domestic industries will grow or not? Whether they indeed will grow or not, with or without the TPP, I will reserve my comments until I have seen proper data and forecasts.

It is you who need to argue for the prospective growth of those domestic industries. Otherwise, if those domestic industries does not have any prospects outside the TPP, then what is the point of saying the TPP will kill them? like I have said, you would be arguing about something that does not exist. And so far, you have only provided data showing that those domestic industries does not exist without the TPP. So according to your projection based on that data, does the mentioned domestic sector have any prospective to grow and challenge foreign competitors outside the TPP? If yes, then provide proper data and analysis to prove this. If there is no prospect, then it defeat your claim and makes it silly and meaningless (i.e. you would be talkimg about something that doesnt exist).

So no, I don’t need to provide any data to dispute your claim because your claim is already flawed and unvalidated to begin with. Validate your claim first before challenging me to dispute it.

So in other words, you have no evidence to back up your words. You are simply "disputing". Works for me.

 

[William Hung]

So in other words, you have no evidence to back up your words. You are simply "disputing". Works for me.

LOL you were the one that made claims...I am only challenging you to back up your claims. That is, to validate your claim with data and analysis. So now when you can’t do that, you are accusing me of being in the wrong lol.

As I have told another Chinese member an analogy once before, and have said it here, its like you writing a research essay to argue for a thesis or claim.

- But you then only stated your claims/thesis without providing the proper data or analysis to support it.

- When asked to provide those to validate your claim, you just simply ask the marker to provide his own evidence to dispute your unvalidated claims, acting like that is a valid way to present a research essay.

- When been told thats not how arguments work. You would then reply to the marker:

So in other words, you have no evidence to back up your words. You are simply "disputing". Works for me.

Do you realise how absurd this is? It is you who have given your claim/thesis but can’t back up your words.

The basic precept is clear, if you make a claim, then back up your claim.

 

[tranquilium]

LOL you were the one that made claims...I am only challenging you to back up your claims. That is, to validate your claim with data and analysis. So now when you can’t do that, you are accusing me of being in the wrong lol.

As I have told another Chinese member an analogy once before, and have said it here, its like you writing a research essay to argue for a thesis or claim.

- But you then only stated your claims/thesis without providing the proper data or analysis to support it.

- When asked to provide those to validate your claim, you just simply ask the marker to provide his own evidence to dispute your unvalidated claims, acting like that is a valid way to present a research essay.

- When been told thats not how arguments work. You would then reply to the marker:


Do you realise how absurd this is? It is you who have given your claim/thesis but can’t back up your words.

The basic precept is clear, if you make a claim, then back up your claim.

Don't worry about it, I get it. Research is hard and providing factual data for counter argument takes effort and understanding. So much easier just claim the other guys' data isn't valid and if he gives the historical data for said country's trade output, then I must say it is not a valid representation of the country. It couldn't be that forecast are based on historical data, amiright?

 

[William Hung]

Don't worry about it, I get it. Research is hard and providing factual data for counter argument takes effort and understanding. So much easier just claim the other guys' data isn't valid

I get it, maybe you were taught by a school where all you need to do to present a well structured research essay is just to simply state your thesis/claims and then challenge the marker to provide counter-arguments against those unvalidated claims. If he don’t, then he would be obliged to award you an +A for that “essay”.

Man, I would love to attend such a school.

and if he gives the historical data for said country's trade output, then I must say it is not a valid representation of the country. It couldn't be that forecast are based on historical data, amiright?

lol when did I say your data is not representative of the country? Strawman? btw, I already knew that those domestic industries doesnt exist even before you posted that data (hint: why do you think I put that smiley face on post #47?).

And why did you ignored my previous question? I wasnt disputing your “forecast”, I was asking, what is your forecast for those industries if the TPP doesnt exist?

If you were forecasting that there is no prospects for those specific domestic industries, then your claim that TPP will kill those industries is silly and meaningless because they don’t exist in the first place.

If you were forecasting that those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP, then you would need to provide more data than the one that you have given, because all that data indicate is that those domestic industries are currently non-existent.

So which is your forecast? the former or the latter? One answer will make your claim absurd while the other would prove that you cant back up your own words. So make a choice, because this is central to your claim.

 

[tranquilium]

I get it, maybe you were taught by a school where all you need to do to present a well structured research essay is just to simply state your thesis/claims and then challenge the marker to provide counter-arguments against those unvalidated claims. If he don’t, then he would be obliged to award you an +A for that “essay”.

Man, I would love to attend such a school.

lol when did I say your data is not representative of the country? Strawman? btw, I already knew that those domestic industries doesnt exist even before you posted that data (hint: why do you think I put that smiley face on post #47?).

And why did you ignored my previous question? I wasnt disputing your “forecast”, I was asking, what is your forecast for those industries if the TPP doesnt exist?

If you were forecasting that there is no prospects for those specific domestic industries, then your claim that TPP will kill those industries is silly and meaningless because they don’t exist in the first place.

If you were forecasting that those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP, then you would need to provide more data than the one that you have given, because all that data indicate is that those domestic industries are currently non-existent.

So which is your forecast? the former or the latter? One answer will make your claim absurd while the other would prove that you cant back up your own words. So make a choice, because this is central to your claim.

Huh, when did I make a claim about "If you were forecasting that those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP"?

What started this train of post by you is this:

"Can you answer those questions and give your analysis for specific sectors in Vietnam? you can ignore the questions about the cost of medicines...I’m especially interested to read your analysis on the current status of various Vietnamese domestic industries (oil, electronics, textile, automobile, etc.), the current research & development progress for specific sectors, and how, with proper reference to specific TPP rules and regulations, the TPP would impede this progress. You have specifically said that Vietnam’s domestic middle-to-high end manufacturing won’t survive the flood of foreign competitors. So what Vietnamese middle-to-high end manufacturing sector were you talking about? can you give specific examples and its current status? if there are any , how exactly are they surviving now? And exactly how will they not survive after the TPP? Notice the article I’ve previously linked said that certain sectors are exempted from the TPP, so you will have to be specific here.

Source: TPP Trade Deal: Gains and challenges for Asia-Pacific countries | Page 4"

In which I gave the data representing the current economic structure of Vietnam (specifically, import and export)

Basically, both the claim and dispute are posted by you and you are demanding someone else to answer your claim.

 

[William Hung]

Huh, when did I make a claim about "If you were forecasting that those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP"?

What started this train of post by you is this:

"Can you answer...

Read that post #47 again, I was replying to one of your quotes where you have specifically claimed that:

Vietnamese/Malaysian native middle-to-high end manufacturing will have problem surviving the flood.

This is your words in reference to the arrival of the TPP.

So, I was asking in post #47, as I have asked all along until now, what Vietnamese “native to mid-to-high end manufacturing” were you talking about? Your data has indicated, and as I have already knew in post #47, that those “native” industry doesn’t exist in Vietnam.

So how did you make the claim that those industries will not survive when it doesn’t even exist in the first place?

It does not exist, and whatever doesnt exist cannot die, or “not survive”, does that make sense now?

Of course you can redeem yourself by saying that you were referring to future prospects of those industries that would grow and challenge foreign competitors in the future and that the TPP would kill those prospects. But if you want to argue for this, then the onus is on you to provide those data and forcasts, including specific TPP texts, that I have been asking for, is that clear now?

Otherwise, just admit that your claims like
“Vietnamese/Malaysian native middle-to-high end manufacturing will have problem surviving the flood.” are just unvalidated claims that you cant back up.

 

[Kyle Sun]

Capital attacks nation sovereignty !

BIG SHOW !

 

[tranquilium]

Read that post #47 again, I was replying to one of your quotes where you have specifically claimed that:



This is your words in reference to the arrival of the TPP.

So, I was asking in post #47, as I have asked all along until now, what Vietnamese “native to mid-to-high end manufacturing” were you talking about? Your data has indicated, and as I have already knew in post #47, that those “native” industry doesn’t exist in Vietnam.

So how did you make the claim that those industries will not survive when it doesn’t even exist in the first place?

It does not exist, and whatever doesnt exist cannot die, or “not survive”, does that make sense now?

Of course you can redeem yourself by saying that you were referring to future prospects of those industries that would grow and challenge foreign competitors in the future and that the TPP would kill those prospects. But if you want to argue for this, then the onus is on you to provide those data and forcasts, including specific TPP texts, that I have been asking for, is that clear now?

Otherwise, just admit that your claims like
“Vietnamese/Malaysian native middle-to-high end manufacturing will have problem surviving the flood.” are just unvalidated claims that you cant back up.

So where is this claim for "If you were forecasting that those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP" you are asking me to prove?

The statement quoted by you in post #47 contains the following:
"This means without protective measure in certain sectors, Vietnam is vulnerable to foreign products flooding into the Vietnam market and eliminate native companies from these sectors, this not only makes the country more dependent on foreign entities for its operation, it also homogenize the economic structure and make it more vulnerable to financial crisis.
It would be a good deal for US and even good for Vietnam in the short term, but it will make future transition from low to middle manufacturing almost impossible because Vietnamese/Malaysian native middle-to-high end manufacturing will have problem surviving the flood."

Which part of this is claiming "those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP"?

 

[William Hung]

So where is this claim for "If you were forecasting that those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP" you are asking me to prove?

The statement quoted by you in post #47 contains the following:
"This means without protective measure in certain sectors, Vietnam is vulnerable to foreign products flooding into the Vietnam market and eliminate native companies from these sectors, this not only makes the country more dependent on foreign entities for its operation, it also homogenize the economic structure and make it more vulnerable to financial crisis.
It would be a good deal for US and even good for Vietnam in the short term, but it will make future transition from low to middle manufacturing almost impossible because Vietnamese/Malaysian native middle-to-high end manufacturing will have problem surviving the flood."

Which part of this is claiming "those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP"?

Did you even read my previous post? See those words of yours that I have hightlighted in red? My question/statement you highlighted in bold text was to make you clarify what you were referring to in that red text.

You were claiming that “Vietnam is vulnerable to foreign products flooding into the Vietnam market and eliminate native companies from these sectors,” and that “Vietnamese/Malaysian native middle-to-high end manufacturing will have problem surviving the flood.”

So what Vietnamese “native” companies and what native mid-to-high end manufacturing sector were you talking about??? Cos right now, those “native” mid-to-high end manufacturing sector doesn’t exist in VN. Your data have also shown that it doesn’t exist, so your above claim is like what I have said, silly and meaningless because you are referring to something that currently does not exist.

So just admit that you were referring to something that you did not know about, i.e. the “native” industry that actually doesnt exist.

OR unless, you might say that you were not referring to any present VN “native” companies/sector, but that you were only referring to potential future prospective “native” Viet companies/sectors (that will have problem “surviving” after the TPP). If this was the case, then to this I asked... "If you were forecasting that those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP..." and asked you to provide the proper data, etc.

So I’m now asking you again to clarify, WHAT was it that you were referring to when you mentioned “native companies” and that “Vietnamese/Malaysian native middle-to-high end manufacturing will have problem surviving the flood.”????

Why do you keep ignoring this question? Can you just answer it to clarify your claim first, instead of beating around the bush?

 

[Rechoice]

Capital attacks nation sovereignty !

BIG SHOW !

Nation get a benefit and could strengthern the sovereignity . GOOD DEAL.

 

[tranquilium]

Did you even read my previous post? See those words of yours that I have hightlighted in red? My question/statement you highlighted in bold text was to make you clarify what you were referring to in that red text.

You were claiming that “Vietnam is vulnerable to foreign products flooding into the Vietnam market and eliminate native companies from these sectors,” and that “Vietnamese/Malaysian native middle-to-high end manufacturing will have problem surviving the flood.”

So what Vietnamese “native” companies and what native mid-to-high end manufacturing sector were you talking about??? Cos right now, those “native” mid-to-high end manufacturing sector doesn’t exist in VN. Your data have also shown that it doesn’t exist, so your above claim is like what I have said, silly and meaningless because you are referring to something that currently does not exist.

So just admit that you were referring to something that you did not know about, i.e. the “native” industry that actually doesnt exist.

OR unless, you might say that you were not referring to any present VN “native” companies/sector, but that you were only referring to potential future prospective “native” Viet companies/sectors (that will have problem “surviving” after the TPP). If this was the case, then to this I asked... "If you were forecasting that those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP..." and asked you to provide the proper data, etc.

So I’m now asking you again to clarify, WHAT was it that you were referring to when you mentioned “native companies” and that “Vietnamese/Malaysian native middle-to-high end manufacturing will have problem surviving the flood.”????

Why do you keep ignoring this question? Can you just answer it to clarify your claim first, instead of beating around the bush?

Hmm, I already admitted in the post #50 that "non-existent/almost non-existent isn't that different". If you want to, okay, it is non-existent then. It is your words though.

Huh, I just realized something. So, this entire lengthy tirade by you is arguing the difference between "non-existent/almost non-existent"?

Edit: Ah, and answer this part did I ever claimed "those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP"?

 

[William Hung]

Huh, I just realized something. So, this entire lengthy tirade by you is arguing the difference between "non-existent/almost non-existent"?

No, “none or almost none” is not the issue. I actually first said “almost non-existent” first, then you made an issue out of it (saying I was playing with semantics, see post #50), so I switched to “non-existent”. But those were never the issue for me. Are you actually using this as a way to beat around the bush?

Edit: Ah, and answer this part did I ever claimed "those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP"?

Why would I need to answer it? You are manipulating those words, I didn’t said you were claiming that. I was simply asking you to clarify whether if you were claiming that, and what you would need to provide if indeed you were saying that. Read post #64 again where you got that quote from me, why did you deliberately deleted the “If” part?? Here’s how I started that paragraph:


“If you were forecasting that those domestic industries will grow to challenge...”

Anyone can read post #64 and see that I was clearly asking you to clarify your claims. You have deliberately deleted this “if” part and manipulated my words, which shows your intellectual dishonesty here.

The reason for the “lengthy tirade” is this: your original claims and criticism of the TPP and Vietnam was flawed. Instead of clarifying it or just admitting that it was flawed, you are now manipulating words and beating around the bush just to avoid admitting that it was flawed?

It is obvious that you are avoiding my request to you to clarify your original claims, to clarify exactly what you were referring to when you first mentioned the Vietnamese “native companies” and “native mid-to-high end manufacturing”. Because if you were to clarify it, whatever answer it may be, it will expose your original claims and arguments as flawed or something you won’t be able to back up.

So, are you able to read my past few posts again and make those clarifications that I was requesting all that time? or are you going to adopt the mentality of some other Chinese members here and just beat around the bush to avoid admitting flaws?

 

[Lazgrane]

Hmm, I already admitted in the post #50 that "non-existent/almost non-existent isn't that different". If you want to, okay, it is non-existent then. It is your words though.

Huh, I just realized something. So, this entire lengthy tirade by you is arguing the difference between "non-existent/almost non-existent"?

Edit: Ah, and answer this part did I ever claimed "those domestic industries will grow to challenge foreign competitors if it werent for the TPP"?

Since you seem to be incapable of comprehending long post, I'm going to make it short in favor of my friend

My point is: "The mid-high tech and pharma native industry in Vietnam is non-existent, thus they cannot be harmed by tpp trade deal."
My proof is the very list of export/import that you threw up here in post #48. You proved yourself that those industries does not exist.
Thus this statement is false.

...Vietnamese/Malaysian native middle-to-high end manufacturing will have problem surviving the flood.

Your turn.