The United
States (US) claims that it wants a level playing field for its corporations in
the People’s Republic of China. The fact of the matter, however, is that China
has beaten the US in its own capitalistic game. The US, on the contrary, wants
an uneven playing field against China. Please click on this link for more: https://youtu.be/KImYPs1T-Mo
The US is furious
about China’s Seagull electric vehicle, which is her version of the idea behind
Germany’s Volkswagen. But the so-called “western democracies” are not
interested in permitting their citizens to buy the best car at the best price. Does
that means that the West has suddenly abandoned capitalism?
While the
US, governed exclusively for its oligarchs, maintains, still today, 38 million
of its citizens living in poverty, China has eliminated her poverty, despite
having 4 times the US’ population. China has been successful in preventing her
oligarchs from hijacking the government, by installing a government that
safeguards the people’s interest. That has been the opposite of what the US has
accomplished. And, that is why 9 of the 10 richest men in the world are US
citizens.
The US’ talk
about having a so-called “level playing field” is for China to allow US companies
to do whatever they want in China. Because China refuses to do so, the US calls
China a dictatorship. 90% of Chinese, however, are satisfied with their
government, while only 33% of Americans are satisfied with ours. How could,
then, the US claim to be the “champion of democracy”?
Moreover,
how could the US be a democracy, when it has consistently refused to comply
with 42 United Nations’ resolutions demanding that it immediately return Puerto
Rico’s sovereignty to the Puerto Ricans?
The US says
that Chinese vehicles, Huawei phones, and the so-called “Chinese spy balloon
are collecting data on US citizens, and therefore are a threat to US national
security. This, of course, is a cheap excuse for China beating the US in its
own neoliberalism.
The US’ only
real claim is being the champion of imperialism.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario