The suit was thrown out on the basis that the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which allows U.S. courts to hear cases against foreign governments for commercial claims, could not be retroactively applied to bonds issued at the turn of the century.
U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pressure British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874–1965) to return the island to China as a concession for their support in the war, but Churchill refused. At the end of World War II, the British still controlled Hong Kong, although the Americans continued to pressure them to return it to China.
Americans think HK belongs to China
On Dec. 19, 1984, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013) and Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang (1919–2005) signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which Britain agreed to return not only the New Territories but also Kowloon and British Hong Kong itself when the lease term expired.
Lease was from Ching. British return HK to china, China agree to over ching dynasty’s asset and debt. If they don’t pay the debt back, means china not taking over ching. Then lease to HK British do not have to return back to china.
The then KMT ROC doesn’t recognize the lease arising from unequal treaty. Then US agreed. The new agreement to return HK to China is done in 1984 under different circumstances. Should not link the lease by Ching to this new agreement.
British return HK to china . Agreement in everyone china took over ching , means took over all asset and debt. If a company bought out by new company. New company owns all asset and debt
人無恥便無敵. I’m out I’ll start a company and took over other company. Only take asset and not debt.
So, now we have the PC guys complaining about anybody being crass like their leader, and telling the truth? My goodness! These liberals are everywhere!
These posters are the child of the guy in the white house, complaining of being treated unfairly and shutting down the conversation by flagging what they don’t like to hear, or read.
“The historical lesson is whatever happens, the sitting president gets credit or blame,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the president of the American Action Forum, a center-right economic group, and an adviser to Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “That’s always been true regardless of the merits. He is clearly trying to make sure he has some fingers to point.”
Btw, company laws in US regarding bankrupt companies and on going concerns are different. AFAIK, debt is forgiven for a bankrupt company so that the bankrupt company can restart afresh.
Companies have to obey laws in nations in which they operate. The laws differ from nation to nation.
Sovereign issues are settled amongst nations through diplomacy and mutual agreements, and in general try to follow rules set by international bodies like UN and IMF.
The Apple Airpods, Apple Watch and accompanying Apple Watch bands and the Apple Homepod are all products subject to the higher tariffs beginning Sunday.
The US auto industry has been one of the biggest victims of the United States’ trade war with other nations and President Trump’s tariff decisions.
In his tweet, Trump claimed GM had moved major plants to China before he became president, which is incorrect. While GM has added several factories in China over the last decade, the company has expanded its manufacturing base there almost entirely to produce for that market.
Want GM to build in US then ship to China? Henceforth incur cost of transportation! And reduce competitiveness!
GM’s expansion in Mexico has been a greater culprit behind its stagnant U.S. manufacturing headcount. The UAW attacked the company’s decision to build the new Chevrolet Blazer in Mexico starting last year, and production of that model helped GM overtake Japan’s Nissan Motor Co. as Mexico’s top carmaker.
No more cheerleaders of this administration?
They are not getting the check the liar in chief promised them I guess…
Hiring slowed in August as the US-China trade war raged
“Today’s jobs report is still a good sign for the labor market, indicating that workers continue to come in off the sidelines,” said Daniel Zhao, a senior economist at Glassdoor. "However, the pace of growth has slowed and sectoral weakness in manufacturing and retail don’t bode well for an economy dealing with escalating trade tensions."
“The narrowing in profit margins, disappointment in corporate earnings and a second-quarter decline in fixed business investment-which has defined the response to the radical changes in trade policy-are likely to lead to reduced hours, consideration of layoffs, and subsequently, reductions in workforce,” said Joseph Brusuelas, the chief economist at RSM.
“Given the timing of the change in tone, it seems more likely that what’s making the difference is a realization on both sides that there’s another way this trade war could end – and that possible ending is one the U.S. is very unlikely to lose.”
It’s important to note that decoupling, even if the trend continues, isn’t necessarily a bullish force for the U.S. economy. It doesn’t mean there will be any increase in American jobs, as the expected Google moves to Vietnam and Thailand make clear. The tariffs on Chinese goods are also not making America richer or directly growing our economy, no matter what the White House says.
Pretty obvious is not about trade imbalance. Whatever trade imbalance claimed to be in existence didn’t make US poorer, so it shouldn’t matter. USA has the most number of billionaires and the tech industry is making huge sums of $$$. Whatever IP thefts claimed to be in existence didn’t stop the tech juggernauts nor stop the SWEs to become the most powerful influencers in the political / economical/ social arenas.
In the end, simply looking out for U.S. security concerns above immediate economic benefits might have been the point of this trade war all along.
Code word for stalling an ascending power.
president-for-life Xi Jingping
OT: Xi is in the moderate camp. Having president-for-life is scary if the next President is in the hardliners’ camp - most likely
Xi is not a moderate, the hardliners are not really hardliners either. They just play different roles in the drama. These so-called hardliners are Xi’s enemies. They want to see Xi fail. So they insist on the way that’s most likely to fail, and then pin the blames on Xi.
Soviet Union lasted only 69 years. China already lasts one more year than the Soviets. Clock is ticking.
It’s not yet an apt comparison, but it’s heading that direction. America has been fighting the USSR since the end of WW2. 40 years later USSR disintegrated. It’s now finally realizing it needs to fight China.
Dictatorship is a hard but brittle system. It doesn’t have peaceful ways to resolve internal conflicts. So one day it looks perfectly fine and the next day it can crumble away. The fissure within the CCP is now pretty apparent. Xi is trying his best to suppress and kill off his enemies.
Maybe need to ask the Tibetans, Uighurs, HKers and Taiwanese how they feel.
, bad 
analogy.
