China arresting a diplomatic delegation would be considered an act of war. China has absolutely nothing to gain by attacking individual Statesian CEOs, and far more to gain by building alternative partnerships that sidestep the US and Europe altogether, if need be, which is what they have been ramping up in the last decade (and why the heat is turning up).

What would China gain from arresting any of these goons, who would immediately be replaced? You're treating them like they believe themselves to be, special individuals that got to the top through merit and cannot be easily replaced, when in reality it's the working classes that built them.

unless you’re suggesting that arresting U.S billionaires is an act of war.

When they're there as part of a US delegation it absolutely would be did you think this through at all?

Cowbee ends up thinking for you guys.

Don't even know what you're trying to imply with this.

What "machine?" What thinking am I doing for anyone? If people react to a statement you make in a similar way, why is that not evidence of being a sensible conclusion to your assertion?

I guage the time it takes for them to respond with their essays. Something strikes me as off when I respond to someone and within 5 minutes I get an essay with 10 sources all neatly formatted. Is it AI? Are they canned templates tuned for individual threads? Don’t know, I do know something is off and I don’t trust it — you clearly don’t think the same.

Hove you considered the fact that anti-communists such as yourself tend to revolve 5-6 talking points/narratives which means whenever you recycle it many people can simply search the keyword in their own histories and copy paste a reply with minimal edits. If you were more creative you'd definitely see less fast replies.

Are they canned templates tuned for individual threads?

Chances are this is what you're seeing. Essays and sources made and compiled, kept on hand. I do the same for the latter at minimum.

I refer to their transition from an agricultural society to an industrialized one. If you think that China is where it is today without the effects of globalization then we don't really have anything to speak about.

The industrial base formed by Mao remains completely intact. State-owned Enterprises have always had full or near-full control of all critical industries. Let's not forget the Soviets industrialized without any of those benefits. Moreover, while what happened under Deng Xiaoping sped up development, China was never capitalist nor state capitalist.

Jeff J. Brown, a China analyst, details this further in this excerpt from an interview about his book China Rising: Capitalist Roads, Socialist Destinations:

"The greatest misunderstanding about China is that when Deng Xiaoping came out with his reform, everybody thinks that China became a capitalist country. Only part of the economy was turned over to capitalist practices, the vast bulk of the Chinese economy is still very much Communist. Let me explain why, first off China has no private real estate, every square inch of this country is owned by the state, people are not buying land, they're buying long-term leases up to 70 years, this has a powerful impact on keeping people from amassing tremendous wealth. Secondly, the economy, all the big heavyweight industries are all state-owned. They only allow maximum 30% ownership by non-state owners, and they have very strict stock concentration laws that prevent anybody from amassing more than a tiny percentage. That's the bulk of the economy, the rest of it is the small business entrepreneurial sector that is almost all privately owned. What the Chinese do is they turn these consumer goods, these high volume, low margin industries over to the people and let them fight it out, helping keep prices and inflation down. With the government owning all the land and the huge industrial sectors, it is still very very Communist. The other thing that makes it Communist is they still have the Five-Year Plan, just like Lenin set out. The reason why China is kicking the butt off of Europe and North America is because the government has already planned to have X number of products. This is why the mixed model of a predominately government-owned economy mixed with a vibrant lower economy in the private hands is working wonders."