China's climate ca$h blackmail

wsbriggs, what an amazing find indeed!

wsbriggs [November 8, 2011 at 10:07 am] says:
If you want to hit the height of irony, catch the quote at the bottom of the OpEd page today in WSJ. It’s from Jin Liqun, the supervising chairman of China’s sovereign wealth fund, speaking to al-Jazeera television this week:
“If you look at the troubles which happened in European countries, this is purely because of the accumulated troubles of the worn out welfare society. I think the labor laws are outdated. The labor laws induce sloth, indolence, rather than hard-working. The incentive system is totally out of whack.
Why should, for instance, within [the] euro zone some member’s people have to work to 65, even longer, whereas in some other countries they are happily retiring at 55, languishing on the beach? This is unfair. The welfare system is good for any society to reduce the gap, to help those who happen to have disadvantages, to enjoy a good life, but a welfare society should not induce people not to work hard.”

How very true. And that makes this man, Jin Liqun, officially smarter than our Republicrats and Dummycrats.
What I find ironic is the fact that the Socialists (or neo-Communists) of the western world have drifted further left than their Communist predecessors. The seeds that were planted in the west by Lenin and nurtured by Stalin and Khrushchev (and our corrupt Media and Academia) are now fully grown and even the remnants old red guard is disgusted! That’s pricesless.
Okay, here’s something I never thought I would ever do, I’m pasting a link to aljazeera! Video and transcript of the above mentioned interview …
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/11/2011114434664695.html

DMarshall says:
November 8, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Anyone who trusts the Chinese leadership is an utter fool. I’ve been saying for over 25 yrs that they cannot be trusted but we’ve gone ahead and enriched them beyond their wildest dreams, crow about our “freedoms” while turning a blind eye to their enslavement of a significant percentage of their population so our Nikes and iPhones can be 25% cheaper and there are no repercussions for decades of industrial espionage. And then there’s their currency manipulation.
And we should not give in to blackmail – they may make a lot of the world’s stuff but they still need many things from outside. Let’s see what happens if no one wants to trade with them – I’ll make an exception for North Korea.
——————————————–
China now playing the game on the world stage is an affront to your sensibilities? What, you think only the ‘west’ has a right to go into other countries and exploit their resources to the detriment of the people of those countries while not giving a damn for their own populations held in poverty to produce the megabucks the elite have deemed necessary for their own well-being?
Take a dose of history. Conditions for the majority workers of the factories producing megabucks for the owners in England were dire, the East India company expropriating the wealth of India allowed millions to starve in a famine because the British elite decided that handouts would depress the price of rice, the first concentration camp was set up by the British in South Africa where they rounded up the women and children of the Boars during their grab for the discovered gold, and the Boars and the British treated the native population with callous disdain to their human rights and ownership of lands, the opium trade in China was to undermine their population to get a foot hold into lucrative pillaging of China’s resources through aggressive trade, etc., etc. If you’re not British, look to your own country’s history, for example American imperialism is well-documented.
Why should the Chinese trust you?
NB, there were exceptions to the factory enslavement of the people in Britain, the Quaker industries for example.

RE:Spector: (November 9, 2011 at 5:16 am)
Addendum. Regarding Jeff Rubin’s comments on regime change, I have always considered this to be an obvious fact and the best reason for saying that we did not go to war for oil. The Bush Administration could not have dismissed the possibility that Saddam Hussein might have the capability to forever contaminate his oil resource with nuclear waste.

Myrrh says:
November 9, 2011 at 3:58 am
…the first concentration camp was set up by the British in South Africa where they rounded up the women and children of the Boars…

The enclosures which properly house the offspring of boars, are called “pens” (pig pens to be exact). This is not inhumane but quite proper treatment of and for piglets and sows. It should never be referred to as a “concentration” camp, even though that is exactly what it is.
The Boer (dutch word for farmer) were quite good at raising swine, as are the Chinese. GK

FYI for Anthony:
Articles like this that are substantially void of original content lowers your Google Search ranking.
A good rule of thumb is that if quoted content exceeds original content it’s not a good idea to publish it. In this article the ratio is close to 3:1 in the wrong direction.
I don’t mean to pick on Tisdale as the last article he wrote was so much longer than this one I thought it far too long for a blog and it was almost all original content. So Bob’s average orginal content to quoted content is exemplary in this regard AFAIK.
Another thing you want to avoid like the plague is related to this. It’s the practice of allowing guest authors to reproduce their blog articles here for the wider exposure and/or obtaining permission to reproduce articles you deem important. It doesn’t matter who solicits who. Google frowns on it and will punish the both of you.
So if you must do this (I understand the motivation) the better way to do it is provide only a link to the article on the original blog and an original synopsis of why you think it important for WUWT readers. You don’t get penalized for using plenty of bling to grab attention just keep the original wordcount in your favor.
I didn’t compare the fall from grace with the proliferation of guest authors that began about a year ago but it might be worth the time to see if there’s any correlation. I noted myself not long thereafter that the quality had fallen off with them and suggested that an informal peer review for guest articles before publication here would be beneficial.

G. Karst says:
November 9, 2011 at 9:48 am
“The enclosures which properly house the offspring of boars, are called “pens” (pig pens to be exact). This is not inhumane but quite proper treatment of and for piglets and sows. It should never be referred to as a “concentration” camp, even though that is exactly what it is.”
I disagree. It bears little resemblance to a concentration camp unless the boars therein were born in the wild. Concentration camps are where people (or animals) who were once free to range at will are forcibly confined to a smaller area.
Whether it’s inhumane or not depends on whether the animals are treated well and given a painless death. Generally speaking animals raised for human consumption would never have been born without human intervention. Based on the premise that a short happy life is better than no life at all then it’s not inhumane. What’s inhumane is fostering their creation then giving them no respect as sentient living things before we consume them. Nature is cruel. People can rise above primal cruelty.