Why would people from China, the world's second-biggest economy, risk their lives to enter the UK?

[Paul2]

If just any belligerents on your side had a bit of merit to them, even demosistas, I would've gave them my quiet respect for just having balls doing what they do, but, no, they are all empty people. Lots of ambitions, and no substance.

Look at them: liberal arts jokes, white collars, lawyers. People of low potential, and no talent. They all like to rouse rabble, make lots of noise, and look like important people among the mess they made, but have no talent to do anything real. A lot like British.

You can't make a class enemy your leader, and then expect them to "pay you back." Just look at USA, the downtrodden there elected a joke as a "punishment" for the elites, and look what they got...

Any real change you can hope to get will come from change in class identity. When HK rich and powerful will stop looking up to the West, and stop thinking of sending kids to Cambridge as a road to "salvation" for them, only then the political culture there will change. Otherwise you will just have an unending cycle of new rabble rousers coming and going every few years, trying to satisfy their vainglorious ambitions in politics.

That's all, I have to sleep. Bye.

 

[Beast]

lol, you know nothing.

The Tung Public hosing fiasco is before the Land Price increase, and guess who caused that increase? Mainland Chinese buyer. And what did the Chinese government do to curb this? Nothing, well, if you count relaxing China-Hong Kong financial rules so it is A LOT easier for the Mainlander to travel and borrow money in Hong Kong is doing something?

And you have to be quite naïve to think Hong Kong government make decision independent from Chinese Government. When the Chief Executive herself is appointed by the Chinese Government, Half of the Legco is chosen by the Chinese government. If they were indeed independent from Chinese Government, would we already have Political Reform already? LOL

As I said, I blame Hong Kong government for being so soft and being a walk over to the Chinese, you on the other hand, blame this fiasco on the British or America. That is what I said.

I don't know why u avoid the obvious.... Who ask Dong to stop that scheme? Is it mainlander or Hongkonger? Shall this plan goes thru, there will be more large supply of houses for ordinary. It doesn't matter it's during housing high price or low price. Fact is hongkonger is control only by a few small group of elite HK tycoon for their own profit. As for mainlander enter HK to spur up property prices, the HK government shall have way to do reclaim land or open up more areas for house building but didn't becos elite HK tycoon wouldn't like the prices to go down. Don't blame mainlander. Don't tell me mainlander don't spend money and spur hongkong economy? If hongkong is close to mainlander , hongkong economy will collapse in no time.

 

[beijingwalker]

39 dead in container: Shock, disbelief in China, as Beijing urges UK authorities to investigate case
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/e...f-in-china-as-beijing-urges-uk-authorities-to

People in China didn't believe the news in the first place. Why UK police just said they were Chinese? just because they have a East Asian face? why they didn't say they are all Japanese.

 

[艹艹艹]

I say they were a mixture of both Chinese and Vietnamese on the container

you r funny

 

[CHN Bamboo]

Stocks and currency are different. HK government stepped in buy up stocks to prevent prices from falling, which was unprecedented.

Watch this, which includes an interview with the relevant authority:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/new...dealt-with-the-asian-financial-crisis-9010408

Just agree or disagree with my figures, or prove that my figures are wrong.

No wait, what are you even trying argue about?

1)What do you think Beijing did to 'save' HK in 1997? Providing 'confidence' for HK? How much did Beijing contribute to the firepower? Tell me the exact number.

2)If Singapore, half the size of HK at that time, can defend itself and help her neighbors, why can't HK defend itself with the world's 3rd largest foreign reserves, x8 of her monetary base?

3)You think China, with just slightly higher reserves than HK, has the luxury of helping HK when she herself has to depend on that money to defend the currency for 1.2 billion people? You think the Chinese leaders are so stupid?

The central government basically rejected and told HK to depend on themselves, by citing 1C2S.

你这个截图是在知乎的：中国政府在97年亚洲金融危机“香港战场”起到了怎样的作用 这个问题里看到的吗？
那个答案底下也有质疑声，你怎么看呢？
https://www.zhihu.com/question/22607847

 

[Mista]

你这个截图是在知乎的：中国政府在97年亚洲金融危机“香港战场”起到了怎样的作用 这个问题里看到的吗？
那个答案底下也有质疑声，你怎么看呢？
https://www.zhihu.com/question/22607847

对，这几图是从知乎载的。

我的看法如同以上回复。

 

[kankan326]

对，这几图是从知乎载的。

我的看法如同以上回复。

你有两个论据：1，香港政府的外汇储备比索罗斯多；2，索罗斯认为香港政府不会干预。
香港政府会因为比索罗斯有钱就放心了吗？还是极度紧张？香港政府有没有在此期间去北京求援？有一点是可以肯定的，828那一天的交锋，对参与港府官员和经历者都是惊心动魄的一天，任志刚说当天自己激动的走着回家，不想开车。说明两点，1，这次交锋的胜利对港府意义重大；2，港府赢得非常艰难。这两点足以说明你前面的两个观点都是错误的。
事件的所有参与者还都健在，网上的主流言论都是在说北京政府支持港府以及描写港府与索罗斯斗智斗勇的事迹。而这些参与者没有一个出来否定。出来否定的都是你说的“自媒体”。说实在的，索罗斯凭啥会认为港府不会干预？他之前攻击过的国家哪个没有干预？而且前面由他一手造成了如此多的惨剧，更增大了香港政府干预的可能。网上说索罗斯在攻击香港之前曾在“华盛顿邮报”上挑衅说港府必败。可惜我没法找到当时的报纸，但我估计不是空穴来风，毕竟华盛顿邮报不是街头小报，拿它造谣是很难的。

 

[KAL-EL]

Per forum rules, please post in English. Thanks!

 

[8888888888888]

I wonder if HK would have called the PLA garrison early if they knew their economy would be in trouble the longer this keeps going on.

 

[hiseen]

I say they were a mixture of both Chinese and Vietnamese on the container

大型打脸现场,这个砸碎多么邪恶.39人死亡,无论他们来自哪里,作为人类(如果是同类的话),至少应该有最基本的善良.被他当作武器来用,世界上怎么会有这种人.确定是巴基斯坦兄弟?
混合物体这个词或许更适合他(杂种)!

Thirty-nine people died. No matter where they come from, as human beings (if you are of the same kind), there should be at least the most basic kindness.
This is a very sad thing and should not be used to attack countries you do not like.
The word "mixed" object may be more suitable for you!

 

[Mista]

2，港府赢得非常艰难。这两点足以说明你前面的两个观点都是错误的。

What struggle are you talking about?

Here's straight from the HKMA:

First, we used the opportunity to sell foreign reserves for Hong Kong dollars, in anticipation of the draw down of fiscal reserves deposited with the Exchange Fund, as the public finances moved into a cyclical as well as a seasonal deficit. This relieved some of the pressure on the exchange rate and therefore obviated the need for a repeat of the very sharp interest rate hike of 1997. The amount of foreign reserves utilised in this manner was about US$10 billion. Secondly, we sold large sums of foreign reserves for Hong Kong dollars for the purchase of Hong Kong stocks equivalent to US$15 billion. Thirdly, we made the monetary base much bigger in order to reduce the sensitivity of interest rates to inflows and outflows of funds. This involved committing another US$13 billion as additional backing. Thus, what was at that time the theoretical minimum requirement of US$12 billion in foreign reserves for the provision of 100% backing to the monetary base became a requirement to mobilise a much higher level of foreign reserves, amounting to a few times the minimum. It should also be noted that we were able to do so without causing a breakdown of confidence in monetary and financial management in Hong Kong on the part of the international financial community, including financial analysts and rating agencies. To a large extent, this was because we had significantly more foreign reserves in the Exchange Fund than the sums mobilised, and the Fund had no significant liabilities other than the fiscal reserves deposited there.

https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr00-01/english/panels/fa/papers/a1022e02.pdf

HK at that time had the 3rd highest foreign reserves in the world, and that is definitely more than enough to defend an economy for 6 million people. Fact is they use entirely their own funds to intervene in the stock market, risking the reputation and integrity of its financial center.

And all mainland China did was pep talk, and you think that was critical. Really, even Singapore did more for our neighbors than what the mainland did for HK at that time and I don't even dare to say that we 'saved' our neighbors and deterred speculators lmao.

In fact the HK government made a profit by intervening in the stock market. And this is exactly why intervention is considered stock manipulation and it's a taboo.

Your claim that HK reserves aren't enough is absolutely laughable to anyone who reads about finance.

We will hold on to blue-chip shares: Tsang

Saturday, August 29, 1998

FINANCIAL Secretary Sir Donald Tsang Yam-kuen yesterday said the government was prepared to hold for the long term the blue-chip shares it had acquired through active intervention in order to ensure market stability.

He did not rule out further market intervention in the event of future speculative attack - a clear indication that the government might continue to accumulate shares of blue chips in the coming days.

Silas Chan, director of Champ Pacific Capital, said the government had acquired an estimated $120 billion worth of blue-chip shares in a two-week market forage meant to make it costly for currency speculators who were using stock futures to speculate against the HK dollar.

"The whole purpose of going into the market is to restore order. For that reason, when we unload these stocks it will be an orderly operation, it will not be an abrupt operation," Sir Donald told newsmen.

Traders and economists, however, said the government may have no option but to keep the shares for the long-term because the market would crash if it attempted to sell the shares in the current situation.

"Obviously, if they will sell all of their shares at one time the market will crash. Because they took this extraordinary step they have the responsibility to unwind their positions in a responsible way," according to Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) regional economist David O'Rear.

"If they accept that the government has no role in playing the stock market, then they should take six, 12, or 15 months to slowly sell-off their shares at a rate that should be predictable and publicised," Mr O'Rear said.

"This would allow the market to understand the government has made a mistake and it's getting out of the business of the manipulating stock markets."

Sir Donald said the government had no intention to hang on to the shares "forever". "These are blue chips, these are the assets of Hong Kong, they are for Hong Kong people. We bought them at a rate when the Hang Seng Index was below 8,000 and it is a very good investment as far as the exchange fund is concerned. I am quite happy to hold them for a long while," he said.

Sir Donald said that when the time came to sell, the government would do so "in an orderly operation". "The most important thing is whether we are able to maintain stability in the market and whether we also get the confidence of the people of Hong Kong and also the local and overseas investors," he said.

https://web.archive.org/web/2007101...sid=&con_type=1&d_str=19980829&sear_year=1998

说实在的，索罗斯凭啥会认为港府不会干预？他之前攻击过的国家哪个没有干预？

You still don't understand the difference between stock intervention (by HK) and currency intervention (by Thailand and Indonesia) until now.

You don't even understand the importance of reputation to a financial center and here you are saying Soros is naive for believing that the HK government will not risk it.

You don't understand the relationship between currency, rates, and stocks.

All you can claim is that the mainland saved HK by providing 'confidence' and that deterred speculators.

In short, you are ignorant and uneducated in finance. I'm done educating you.

 

[kankan326]

What struggle are you talking about?

Here's straight from the HKMA:



https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr00-01/english/panels/fa/papers/a1022e02.pdf

HK at that time had the 3rd highest foreign reserves in the world, and that is definitely more than enough to defend an economy for 6 million people. Fact is they use entirely their own funds to intervene in the stock market, risking the reputation and integrity of its financial center.

And all mainland China did was pep talk, and you think that was critical. Really, even Singapore did more for our neighbors than what the mainland did for HK at that time and I don't even dare to say that we 'saved' our neighbors and deterred speculators lmao.

In fact the HK government made a profit by intervening in the stock market. And this is exactly why intervention is considered stock manipulation and it's a taboo.

Your claim that HK reserves aren't enough is absolutely laughable to anyone who reads about finance.




https://web.archive.org/web/2007101...sid=&con_type=1&d_str=19980829&sear_year=1998




You still don't understand the difference between stock intervention (by HK) and currency intervention (by Thailand and Indonesia) until now.

You don't even understand the importance of reputation to a financial center and here you are saying Soros is naive for believing that the HK government will not risk it.

You don't understand the relationship between currency, rates, and stocks.

All you can claim is that the mainland saved HK by providing 'confidence' and that deterred speculators.

In short, you are ignorant and uneducated in finance. I'm done educating you.

So suddenly you become a professional economist. There is a jok I guess you must have heard. A man ate six steamed buns and he felt full. Then he said:"Damn it. This is a waste. I shouldn't have eaten the first five ones." You are the stupid man. No matter it is currency or stock, confidence is the most critical factor. All investors would follow Soros to buy or sell if the market confidence collapsed. Which we call magnification effect. Since it was a close win for HK even with China's support, it means HK government was not in an overwhelming position back then. You win a battle before you shot out all bullets. Can you say the left bullets are useless? No. Actually they are the most important part. If there are no so many visible backup ammunition, your morale would be low and you would be overcausious during the battle. You definitely will lose the war. What China offered HK is the surplus ammunition. Maybe Singapore offered bullets to its neighbours. But I know the bullets were all shot out. The unused or leftover bullets are always more important than the shot ones. As I said confidence is most important factor in stock and currency market. Leftover bullets give people confidence. Shot bullets give people anxiety.

 

[Mista]

So suddenly you become a professional economist. There is a jok I guess you must have heard. A man ate six steamed buns and he felt full. Then he said:"Damn it. This is a waste. I shouldn't have eaten the first five ones." You are the stupid man. No matter it is currency or stock, confidence is the most critical factor. All investors would follow Soros to buy or sell if the market confidence collapsed. Which we call magnification effect. Since it was a close win for HK even with China's support, it means HK government was not in an overwhelming position back then. You win a battle before you shot out all bullets. Can you say the left bullets are useless? No. Actually they are the most important part. If there are no so many visible backup ammunition, your morale would be low and you would be overcausious during the battle. You definitely will lose the war. What China offered HK is the surplus ammunition. Maybe Singapore offered bullets to its neighbours. But I know the bullets were all shot out. The unused or leftover bullets are always more important than the shot ones. As I said confidence is most important factor in stock and currency market. Leftover bullets give people confidence. Shot bullets give people anxiety.

Coming from someone who can't even differentiate a stock intervention and a currency intervention, says Soros is naive from that basis of understanding and continue to spew nonsense with his own 'theories'.

江湖医生您说得都对呀。在中央政府的强大支撑下，香港虽然保住了自己的经济命脉，但也只能说收获了“惨胜”，而若没有这个强大的后盾，其后果就更加无法想象了！对于这场金融战争，中央政府的表现获得了全世界的广泛赞誉，其角色定位之精准、出手之决心、策略之稳重让世界赞叹！



China's economy is even smaller than Italy in 1997. For comparison, India is larger than Italy today. China had not join the WTO and is only 5x the size of HK, with economic volatility of its own to take care of.

What makes you think that China's pep talk is a critical 'do or die' confidence boost for HK?

 

[kankan326]

Coming from someone who can't even differentiate a stock intervention and a currency intervention, says Soros is naive from that basis of understanding and continue to spew nonsense with his own 'theories'.

江湖医生您说得都对呀。在中央政府的强大支撑下，香港虽然保住了自己的经济命脉，但也只能说收获了“惨胜”，而若没有这个强大的后盾，其后果就更加无法想象了！对于这场金融战争，中央政府的表现获得了全世界的广泛赞誉，其角色定位之精准、出手之决心、策略之稳重让世界赞叹！

我哪里说错了直接反驳就行了。不要旁敲侧击。Just tell me which part of my reply is wrong. I didn't say Soros is naive. What I said is Soros would be naive by applying your logic. For me, you don't look like an economist cause you think Soros believe HK government would not intervene and he dare not attack the one who has more money than him.
You are becoming more and more unreasonalbe.

 

[Mista]

我哪里说错了直接反驳就行了。不要旁敲侧击。Just tell me which part of my reply is wrong. I didn't say Soros is naive. What I said is Soros would be naive by applying your logic. For me, you don't look like an economist cause you think Soros believe HK government would not intervene and he dare not attack the one who has more money than him.
You are becoming more and more unreasonalbe.

Sure, that confidence boost from Beijing was more or less a help. But the question is, was that a critical determinant? The fact remains that HK did all the fighting by herself, and still has more than enough ammunition left. They even made a profit out of it, and it's exactly why investors are wary of a government intervention; the government can just make easy profits by manipulating the stock market. It's a moral hazard.

I've said on numerous times (@KungFuLee as well), that Soros was betting that the HK government will not intervene in the stock market. You think that's a naive thinking because you don't understand how it works. It damages a financial center's reputation, and not even the US Fed buys stocks in the market to boost prices in 2008GFC. It's a moral hazard.

You think it's no big deal to intervene because you're in China where the government simply intervenes in Shanghai markets to prop prices. The market bends towards the government's political will in China, and foreigners are wary of that. You can't use your understanding of the financial markets in mainland China and apply it elsewhere.

If I'm unreasonable I wouldn't have spend my time digging out sources and explaining to you how it works. Yet you ignored my points and came out with non-technical 江湖 theories.

And frankly, if you're some other nationality I wouldn't be so nice to even bother explaining to you guys and bridge the gap of understanding. I would lurk around and just laugh it off.