zephyreks

Reddit has shit analysis: "why does the end of the petrodollar not mean that oil is priced in Bitcoin or tulip bulbs?"

Motherfucker the petrodollar was a matter of convenience. The USD was already gloablly-accepted and a large component of foreign reserves, which made it sensible to make it the petrodollar, which served as a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Even if the petrodollar ended, you wouldn't see significant impacts on the price of oil, the value of the USD, or the oil trade in general for years.

What do you think freedom fighters are? The fact that they are fighting for freedom does not inherently mean that they support Western values. The West does not have a monopoly on freedom.

China has seen the hottest real estate market it's ever seen. How many subsidies were banks handing out?

Yes but that would have tax implications.

A monopoly is not inherently bad. A monopoly removes the incentive for pricing pressure, yes, but that requires consolidation in a single company, not a single country. China's only been able to sell EVs so cheap because every company that couldn't drive prices this low got blown the fuck out of the market. That's competition, not a monopoly. By extension, if EV prices go back up, those competitors can pretty easily restart given the billions of venture funding swimming around in China.

So... I take it you're not from San Jose? Overfelt High is notoriously a highly minority-dominated, economically-disadvantaged, high-crime area. It's next to the 101, segregated from the rest of the city, has obscene noise pollution, and, again, is notoriously economically-disadvantaged. You would not want to live there.

Edit: the fact that you would even link to that house shows how out of depth you are in this. That's fine... I guess LA is an easier housing market to understand. Maybe the Bay Area is different, but you still should really not be linking random shit anyway. It shows that you're willing to make arbitrary claims without sufficient knowledge on the issue.

Again, your claim is that surveillance to enforce sanctions is considered "navigation."

That's absurd. Surveillance is absolutely an explicit military action. The standard practice has always been to intercept surveiling aircraft where possible (e.g., the entire reason the SR-71 is so fast is because it can avoid being intercepted) in international airspace. The SR-71 never entered Soviet airspace, and yet it was still somewhat reliably intercepted by MiG-31s throughout the Cold War.

You're deliberately being obtuse about this issue because you seem to think "oh I'm putting around on my ship shooting stuff, launching drones, innocent passage woe is me." A military ship has the legal right to sail innocently - that's the justification for FONOPs. A military ship does not have the legal right to pursue military action - UNCLOS does not protect any states right to pursue military action.

I agree, dumping is well-defined. Here's the problem, though:

Chinese EV manufacturers are selling their cars domestically for far less than they are in Europe. They're already price-gouging their European customers. Moreover, only something like 10% of Chinese car production is made for export, and much of that is by European/American brands that are only producing in China because of the cost advantage. This is compared to 70% or more in the case of Germany and Japan.

There's a far stronger case for overcapacity and dumping from Germany and Japan than there is for China. It's an absurd bending of WTO rules to align with, as you said, protecting EU carmakers.

It's protectionist policy, and that's fine, but it should be clear to everyone that dumping and overcapacity are bullshit justifications for it. I absolutely agree with you that it should be a part of the EU mandate to protect EU workers and EU businesses. I don't disagree with the tariff, I just don't like the justification being given for it.

Except... That's not what UNCLOS says.

Article 56.2

the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention

Article 58

In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.

In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

Article 73

The coastal State may, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.

Let me bold the points in question.

Valid operations in the EEZ are: freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, however states shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part. The coastal state has the right to take such measures, including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention.

Military action (and, indeed, enforcing sanctions with surveillance using military ships is almost certainly military action) is not a directly permitted operation (it's neither navigation nor overflight). It's not an operation involved with "operating ships or aircraft", and it's not an operation explicitly allowed under UNCLOS by any means. UNCLOS does not specify that all surface traffic is permitted. Given that, UNCLOS specifies that states should defer to the coastal states rules and regulations. However, UNCLOS only directly gives the coastal state right to intervene in matters regarding living resources and does not explicitly allow intervention for non-resource interests.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/445-Bradley-Ave-San-Jose-CA-95128/19585003_zpid/

https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Jose/445-Bradley-Ave-95128/home/731757

That was a whole lot of words to say "I don't know what I'm talking about about."

Below the profitable rate? Last I checked, Chinese EV manufacturers were either making money hand over fist or getting BTFO's of the market by those that could.