Slashdot Mirror

The hassle is returning to the US.

Last time I traveled from the US the only part of the trip that gave me a giant hassle was returning home. Pretty much everywhere else was just "scan your passport and go" but the US sent me through a two hour line to get through customs (as a citizen, mind you, there was a different "non-citizen" line) that combined with a delayed flight meant I missed my connecting flight home. Which I then had to go through a giant hassle to rebook because while the (foreign) airline I booked the flight through rebooked me on a new connecting flight, the US-based airline handling that flight refused to give me a boarding pass for that new flight. So then there was a second round of arguing with ticketing agents while jetlagged.

And that was before I had to go through US airport security because foreign airport security doesn't count and the international terminal was a separate part of the airport than the domestic terminal anyway.

It's the same with visiting Canada - getting into Canada as a US citizen is fairly easy. Returning to the US is a couple of hours as you deal with US customs.

Sounds like you haven't traveled that much to me. The USA is basically average in my opinion. Anyone complaining about US immigration hasn't experienced the circus at MNL (Manila, Philippines). It resembles a free for all. Long lines, a stink that is similar to the Paris subway, etc. Oh, and those airline fees that normally are just added on to your ticket? At MNL you have to pay them in cash. Inbound and outbound.

Let's not forget that many countries require an actual visa to travel there, even as a tourist. China's L visa (tourist visa) is a pain in the butt, and costs $140. More if you want a 3rd party company to do the inconvenient work of actually going to the Chinese consulate on your behalf. Even just getting a 48 hour transit visa in Beijing is more difficult than it should be. There are many countries that have similar requirements and ordeals.

Most USA visitors can just do the ESTA, buy their ticket, and come for a visit of up to 90 days, with very little scrutiny. That's not unreasonable in my opinion, and is much easier than many other countries. Not as easy as going from one EU country to another, but quite easy when compared to China, Russia, and a long list of other countries.

China has a very large Muslim population. Every town I have lived in has had at lest one, and often several mosques. China includes Islam prominently when identifying its nations religions.

"Chinese citizens enjoy full religious freedom. China is not only a large country in terms of population, it is also a major country in terms of religion, with schools of Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism and others, and a total of 100 million religious adherents among a national population of 1.2 billion." http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/zjxy/t36496.htm

Hmmm... Makes me wonder if the Sea Shepard team should seriously start a recruiting campaign in China. New Zealand and Australia are nice and all, but seem to lack the balls to back up and enforce the no whaling policy setup many years ago. Now a country with a somewhat active navy and resources to hold ransom, that might give a bit of a boost. Imagine the results if a few Chinese citizens were deployed in the Antarctic and pulled some non-violent passive aggressive boarding tactics ala Peter Bethune.

Interestingly enough, a quick google found this.

It's not that I don't like Japan. They do some great and wonderful things with technology, entertainment, and general cultural weirdness. But in regards to some other things (like overfishing, whaling, and dumping trash out at sea), they really should consider the bigger picture and whether or not their actions are really worth it.

First, we're not delving into any complicated world economy or political discussion. These are all fairly simple concepts that have been talked about for decades, that we're just rehashing.

Second, the simple fact of partially capitulating or agreeing to pointless requests and not actually following through with it, does not mean anything.
Organizations, companies, people in general have been doing it for millenniums.

Look at it as, taking a loss for a greater gain.
Nodding your head and agreeing to shut them up.
Agreeing to something minor to avoid drawing attention to the real issue. (Like this article is implying)

The fact that China's back at the table after 14 years of not doing much regarding TRIPS besides the occasional high-profile raids (which they probably have their own reasons why it was beneficial to them), doesn't show that they were forced to agree to it due to necessity. It only shows that they paid lip service and got some benefits out of it.

Here's a car analog for you. You change your engine oil every 3,000 miles because it makes it easier for the engine and you get some benefit. Doesn't mean the engine needed the oil change, it could have gone to 6,000 miles. Or even 9,000 though that'd be silly.

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/xw/t272113.htm
To lead off with, to point out there are other countries.

Here's another analogy, I like analogies.
Wal-mart and chain supermarkets does things cheap, they hurt local business, they have horrendous practices, they have activists against them. Yet...hordes of people will still go to them, and get excited when they expand. It's not because people hated the local business, but it's because people do what they need to do, sometimes have little other choices, and come on the savings.

You're under the impression other countries will stop doing business with China if they do not take the WTO's agreement as seriously as the Western countries want them to? Some sort of embargo? On behalf of the US leading the charge? THAT'S laughable.

And as far as politics go, my examples from earlier? Think back into history.

Eh, NAFTA doesn't bother me that much. Granted, I'm not one of those who were adversely affected by it but I can see the value of promoting free trade right here in the Americas as opposed to doing business with these assholes.

It's a mystery to me why we aren't making more of an effort to expand our trade with Latin and South America. For all the faults of that part of the World most of those countries are actual Democracies. Instead we do the bulk of our business with a Communist directorship that engages in censorship, forced sterilizations, etc, etc.

Yeah, that's logical.

Yahoo.com.cn is actually not owned by Yahoo at all, it is wholly owned by alibaba.com, a chinese company. The sale took place 2 years ago. http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gyzg/t206942.htm

Since July 2006.

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gyzg/t141754.htm

With tougher-yet standards coming in 2008:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/0 7/content_346332.htm

In China the very concept of civil society is still alien while it has emerged rapidly in Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. India has a rapidly increasing middle class and is the world's biggest democracy.

You obviously have no idea of what a middle class is and what type of middle class already exists in China:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3732914.st m
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gyzg/t127568.htm

and is also stronger than that exists in India:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2206/stories/200 50325003600400.htm

In general, the phrase "middle class" gets thrown around very recklessly. In countries like India, which apparently has 200+ million "middle class", the majority of the middle class families do not have an aggregate income of even US $15,000/year (Rs. 677k/year or Rs. 56.5k/month). This income level does not make them a "middle class" on a global scale. This is not to mention that prices of real estate and other commodities have been sky-rocketing in big Indian cities to offset the rising incomes significantly.

As for civil society, thats a very different ball game and counties like India with 700+ million people (out of 1.1 billion people) even beneath the pseudo middle class are nowhere near a civil society. If also takes human rights to be a civil society, not money alone (otherwise Saudi Arabia or Kuwait would be a civil society too) third world needs to address the large-scale violation of human rights (irrespective of the form of government) first.

Actually, the Chinese govt strongly disapproves of Falun Gong, and has been cracking down very hard on it for some time. You can read more about this if you search Google for "chinese government falun gong" or "china falun gong" etc., as long as you're using Google from outside of China.

The Chinese govt also maintains an official anti-Falun Gong website, though it's unreachable from here at the moment. They also have some articles putting their side of the story here.

I'm not too keen on Falun Gong personally, but at least they're not chucking anyone in prison for disagreeing with them.

I stand corrected.

Using the numbers you provided for me regarding internet users we would be at roughly 43% of the population, not 70%. Incorrect, but still within the limits of what my argument was stating.

According to this, roughly 60% of Americans have a cell phone compared to the roughly33% predicted in China by 2007. I know these numbers are loose, but its what I could find.

This states that there were 2.1 cars in the US per person in 2000. So I'll stick with the 70% there.

These numbers support my underestimation of TV's in America, but I really don't think that was ever in question.

In summation, you are correct that I should have used the number of internet active people in the US instead.

Let's do the math shall we?

China's middle class at 19% of 1.3bil:
(http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/gyzg/t8 0880.htm) 247mil people.

India's middle class at roughly the same percentage, 19% of 1bil: 190mil people.

The middle class of the US at 45% of 300mil: (http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html) 135mil

Which market would be more attractive to you as a handset maker?

er.. they have plenty about China and many other countries if you followed the links

It's much easier than that:

Report by China on Human-Rights abuses in the United States

Most Favored Nation status was renamed year or two ago, to Normal Trade Relations. Most countries already had MFN, so the name change was appropriate. So, I'm sure Australia has it.

I personally agree that countries which violate basic rights flagrantly, and often, should be reprimanded. Americans, a majority of whom I'm sure, deplore the actions taken by the "Communist" government of the PRC. It's time the US government, on this issue, acted in a way that represents the people, and not the idea of a "free market", as mis-represented by various GM, Microsoft, and other lobbyists.

To those who submit that tariffs are government interference, I reply that tariffs are probably the least intrusive tax, as they tax foreign goods. I don't care if some US-based multinational owns it; a Coppermine processor manufactured in Malaysia is not a domestic product.

To those who submit that tariffs tax domestic companies indirectly, because other countries respond with tariffs of their own, I give the reminder that I'm only suggesting that the PRC not be granted NTR. And, according to 1996 numbers provided by the PRC embassy, the US ran a 33 billion dollar trade deficit (with 16 billion on Chinese imports). Compared with the total production of the US economy, a potential reduction of that 16 billion, due to retaliatory tariffs, is peanuts. The PRC would be hurt by a trade war far more than US would.

To the Chinese trade ministers: The US economy is the largest national economy in the world, whose potential for imports can keep entire regions afloat during a crisis. The libertarian Republican/human rights Democratic coalition in Congress would be more than happy to blow your head clean off. Do you feel lucky, punk?