Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Money. Show all posts

Monday, March 05, 2018

ZERO SUM



If I was an American citizen, I think I would be deeply embarrassed at my country’s president’s ignorance of the most basic principles of economics.  Here are just a few of the simple facts the so-called president doesn’t appear to comprehend:

Ÿ   Import tariffs impose costs – while American steel makers may welcome curbs on their overseas competitors, steel users such as Boeing – one of America’s biggest exporters – and General Motors will face higher costs for their raw materials, which will make them less competitive (and leave Boeing’s main rival Airbus laughing all the way to the bank).  This will reduce exports, cost jobs, raise prices for American consumers – hurting retailers as well – and even make Trump’s promised infrastructure upgrade more costly – bridges, tunnels and railways (not to mention ridiculous border walls) consume enormous volumes of steel.
Ÿ   Import tariffs invite retaliation – countries which see their exports to the US restricted are very likely to impose barriers to US exports in a tit-for-tat move.  Back to square one!
Ÿ   Trade wars have no winners – ultimately everyone ends up paying more (see above).
Ÿ   Trade deficits are normal – it is pointless to worry too much about the US trade deficit with a single country, because it is part of a much larger pattern of deficits and surpluses.  Every trading country will have a surplus with some countries and a deficit with others, depending on what it imports and exports.  America may have a huge deficit with China, for example, but it has a massive surplus with Australia.
Ÿ   You need to look at the whole value chain – much of America’s trade deficit with China is accounted for by American companies outsourcing their manufacturing to China (as well as other markets where labour costs are lower).  True, this may take jobs from American workers, but it brings back profits to the USA and makes goods cheaper for American consumers – if every T-shirt in Walmart was US-made, it would probably cost several times as much.  And manufacturing is only one stage in the entire value chain (does Trump even understand that concept?) – value is also added by raw material production, design, packaging, shipping, distribution and retailing, etc. – much of which remains in American hands.
Ÿ   Giving the rich more money doesn’t benefit the economy – while tax breaks for the super-wealthy – with a handful of token concessions to the middle class – has been the policy of every Republican administration since Reagan’s, the money has never been shown to boost the economy significantly.  The reason for this is simple – rich people already have all they need, so if they receive more money they tend to save it.  By contrast, if the poor get more money they will usually spend it quickly, stimulating demand for goods and services and thereby creating more jobs.  The one thing the rich do consistently spend money on is supporting politicians who will continue to enrich them by pursuing the failed “trickle-down” policy at the expense of everyone else.

The global economy – which every country is part of – is a highly complex and heavily inter-related monster.  Every action in one part of it has consequences far beyond the immediate local result.  Donald Trump’s butterfly mind tends to alight on one contentious issue and rush to take some superficially attractive action in response without analyzing the whole chain of consequences which will follow.  Effective economic leadership requires joined-up thinking – something for which Trump shows no aptitude wha

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Who's Cruzy Now?

Iowa Republican caucuses winner Ted Cruz's victory speech - after the obligatory nod to God - sought to project him as a grassroots anti-establishment candidate, an outsider.  The next President of the United States, he claimed, "will not be chosen by the Washington establishment" and "will not be chosen by the lobbyists".  Presumably this indicates that Cruz - a Senator in Washington, whose campaign contributors [and here] include a bunch of SuperPACs as well as the usual Wall Street suspects like the oil and gas industry and financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, the controversial investment bank up to its ears in both the 2008 financial crisis and the Greek debt crisis - does not expect to become the next President!

Cruz is no stranger to self-contradiction - according to the BBC, as solicitor general "he argued in favour of the death penalty and late-term abortion bans", thereby contriving to be simultaneously both pro-life and anti-life!  But that is a contradiction he shares with most of the religious right wing in America, to whom human life is apparently more valuable before birth than afterwards.

Cruz is not of course the only Republican candidate who hasn't thought things through - Marco Rubio, third-placed Republican candidate in Iowa, blames mental illness for America's epidemic of gun violence.  At the same time, he has vowed to dismantle President Obama's health care reforms which have made health care more affordable for millions.  Perhaps he wants more untreated nutcases roaming the streets with guns?

One of the stated aims of this blog is "to make sense of the world".  Guys like this make that very difficult,

Thursday, October 08, 2015

Who wins?

Hong Kong has once again proved it is different from anywhere else on earth.  While I am sure there have been previous cases where FIFA has fined national teams because their fans have booed the anthem of an opposing country, this must be the first time in history that a team has been fined because its fans booed the anthem of their own country.  Beijing may consider the fine a victory for China, but is it?  In fact it could be seen as a moral victory for Hong Kong, because it draws the world's attention to the fact that many Hong Kong people do not want to show any allegiance to a dictatorial state they had no say in becoming part of.

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

How many shoe-shiners does it take to commemorate the end of a war?

Almost 300, apparently.  Chief Executive CY Leung is leading a delegation of 296 handpicked Hongkongers to attend tomorrow's ceremony in Beijing at which the Chinese government will celebrate 70 years since the end of the Second World War and Japan's invasion of China by having large numbers of soldiers march around.  Presumably we - the Hong Kong public - are paying for this trip.

The list of those invited shows that most of them are the usual United Front suspects - from the Quat Doctor to the odious Robert Chow.  Some of them are multi-millionaires like James Tien and Allan Zeman who could easily afford to pay for their own tickets, though I doubt if they will be asked to.  A token 1% of the group is made up of representatives of the watered-down end of the pan-democratic spectrum, but the party as a whole is hardly a cross-section of Hong Kong society.

How many of these people, I wonder, bothered to attend the recent events marking Hong Kong's liberation from Japanese occupation - once a public holiday here - and paying tribute to those who fought and died for Hong Kong?  And how many of the few surviving warriors who fought for Hong Kong were invited to the event in Beijing? It would be nice to have a Hong Kong government that paid attention to Hong Kong occasionally, instead of being entirely focused on sucking up to the central government.


Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Return to Paradise


If you're thinking I haven't posted anything for a while, it's mainly because I was away in Europe for three weeks, and then didn't return to watching the news for a week after getting back to Hong Kong.

You can't imagine how gloriously refreshing it was to take a break from Hong Kong politics - not to be subjected to CY's robotic intonation of Beijing's latest nonsense every day; Rita Fan's gleeful smirk as she again tells Hong Kong people they haven't a hope of achieving their legitimate aspirations; Carrie Lam's forced smile as she again reads from a script she must know is rubbish, while dreaming of her retirement home in England (poor England!); Maria Tam gazing adoringly at Xi Jinping like a lovestruck groupie who's just won admittance to Led Zeppelin's dressing room; greasy Greg So and the equally oleaginous Rimsky Yuen peddling their latest line of Beijing-approved snake oil; obscure mainland academics who've never been near Hong Kong posing as experts on the place; the permanently angry Leticia Lee berating anyone who doesn't love the CCP, or who does love someone of their own sex; Robert Chow repeatedly trying to get in the Guinness Book of Records for gathering the largest number of dubious signatures on a petition; imported blue ribbon thugs; and all the rest of the unlovely establishment crew.

When leaving London I usually buy a decent bottle of single malt at Heathrow - a more expensive exercise every year.  This year it was Talisker Dark Storm, which cost me around £42.  Then in transit at Frankfurt, I noticed they had it at a special offer price of €44, so I picked up another bottle.  Out of curiosity, I checked the duty free price in Hong Kong on arrival - HK$730.  Let's compare:
Then I did actually hear one bit of current news: the Hong Kong government, alarmed at the recent drop in tourist revenues, is planning a new campaign to promote Hong Kong as a shoppers' paradise - something it hasn't been for more than 20 years.  The irony here is that it's largely the overwhelming influx of visitors, mainly from the mainland, that has jacked up commercial rents to unprecedented heights, forcing prices up to far above paradisiacal levels.  So the government wants to attract more of them.

Anyway, here I am back in paradise...

Saturday, March 14, 2015

If the Message Stinks, Repeat It Louder

When not blatantly brown-nosing China's leaders with an editorial (above) that could have been cloned straight from the front page of the China Daily, the South China Morning Post is usually sucking up to Hong Kong's business lobby.
Naturally, therefore, it joins the hysterical chorus demanding a third runway at Chek Lap Kok.  The public, it tells us, "can be excused for feeling confused about the development of the airport's third runway".  The Post suffers from no such uncertainty, assuring us with an air of smug superiority, "that the project is still challenged by different sectors at this stage underlines the need for better explanation."

That the project has failed to win public support is arrogantly assumed by the writer to be a mere failure of communication.  All that needs to be done, in his (or her) view, is to keep shouting the same message at the public until it gets across to them.

Does it not occur to these dumbclucks that the real reason the plan "has yet to get broad public support" may be that the case for the third runway is far from proven?  Perhaps the public is not convinced because the case for the project is not convincing.  For a start, even the editorial admits that it has not yet been decided who will pay for this grandiose mega-project, estimated to cost HK$136 billion -- though such massive infrastructure ventures typically end up costing far more than the originally budgeted figure.

Although the government conducted a public consultation exercise on the issue back in 2011, this was based on a highly selective presentation of the facts, and several trends have changed since then.  China's economy has slowed, along with the rest of the world's, probably leaving forecasts of future demand overstated.  Climate scientists' warnings of the dangers of global warming have become more urgent, though carbon emissions were not even considered in the original environmental impact assessment.  Even "pro-China" politicians are now calling for a cap on tourist numbers as Hong Kong creaks at the seams to accommodate too many mainland visitors.  And recent studies suggest that the beleaguered local Chinese White Dolphin population - whose habitat sits in the way of the proposed land reclamation - is under even greater stress than previously thought. All these have negative implications for airport expansion.

In fact so many factors are involved that it is doubtful that any forecast of future air travel demand can be more than a best guess, depending on what assumptions one chooses to make.  Economic developments, fuel costs, the ongoing movement of manufacturing away from the Pearl River Delta deeper into China, the adoption of larger planes like the Airbus A380, the effect on wildlife, the impact of China's expanding High Speed Rail network on demand for air travel, the shortage of local construction workers - so many uncertainties surround all these variables that any prediction is likely to be well off the mark.  In fact the only certainties -- increased noise and air pollution if the project goes ahead and the likely wiping out of our local dolphin population -- all support the cancellation of the expansion plan.

"Our status as a regional aviation hub" the Post argues "hinges on whether we can compete with other airports" -- but readers' comments beneath the original editorial question whether we can -- or need to be -- a regional aviation hub in a region with four other airports. Indeed, some suggest that the region's airspace is too crowded already to permit the number of extra flights required to make the additional runway cost-justifiable.

Of course those in the aviation sector -- with the Post as their cheerleader -- predictably insist that the third runway is urgently essential, because it will benefit them.  But is is by no means clear that it will benefit the community as a whole.

Making It Better:
Worldwide Fund for Nature

Monday, February 16, 2015

Lighten Up, Loonies!

The Hong Kong government's arrogant insistence that it's right about everything, even as it steers the ship of state ever closer to the looming rocks, is annoying enough - it's come to the point where I feel physical revulsion every time I turn on the TV and the face of CY Leung, Gregory So, Paul Chan or one or two other particularly creepy ministers looms out at me.  Now it seems some of these people are going totally off the mental rails into the stratospheric realms of hyperbolic simile, far removed from mundane reality.

The government has been seeking HK$35 million from the Legislative Council to set up an Innovation & Technology Bureau - a request opposed by many pan-democrats in the Council.  The proposed Bureau is supposed to spur the development of the technology sector in Hong Kong - though many in the IT sector, one of its principal intended beneficiaries, doubt it will achieve anything other than adding a few more overpaid political jobs to an already bloated roster.

Partly for this reason, and partly out of their generalised (and not entirely ill-founded) principle that anything the government wants to do must be wrong, the pan-democrats in LegCo are opposing the government's funding request.  Hong Kong politics as usual, so far - but this is where things start to get crazy.  First Chief Executive CY Leung likens moves to prevent the Bureau's formation to "killing a baby in the womb".  Then ExCo member Fanny Law literally brings down a curse on opponents of the Bureau, suggesting they will "be destroyed by heaven and Earth" (apparently heavy stuff in Chinese).

As if this isn't extreme enough, she compounds her self-righteous posturing by likening the bill's opponents to terrorists, declaring "Just like the Islamic [State] when I saw them kidnap people and just chop off their heads ... I was just heartbroken."  Well, lighten up, CY and Fanny - the pan-democrats may often be irritating, even to their own supporters, but so far as I'm aware not even the occasionally rabid-mannered Wong Yuk-Man has yet started kidnapping people and brutally slashing their throats.

It's not a moral issue, not a matter of life and death - just a new government department that may or may not help boost Hong Kong's technology sector.  Probably not - I tend to agree with Civic Party legislator Alan Leong that the administration lacks the vision necessary to boost innovation and technology in Hong Kong. In fact, efforts by governments usually have far less to do with the expansion of a particular economic sector in any country than the chance confluence of the right conditions for its growth.

So less of the heavy talk and more of the calm discussion, please - and Fanny, if you continue to have these delusions, you can get free psychiatric treatment at government hospitals in Hong Kong.  Just ask - they won't cut your head off!

Friday, February 13, 2015

The Slow Painful Death of ATV

Amid all the hopeful talk of finding new investors to revive ATV's fortunes, no one seems to be paying much attention to one awkward fact: the station's licence expires later this year.  Since it has already failed to pay its licence fee on time and cannot even afford to pay its staff at present, the prospect that any sane broadcasting authority would renew its licence is virtually nil (though in Hong Kong's current crazy political climate nothing can be entirely ruled out).  Anyone putting money into ATV would be extremely unlikely to recover their investment in less than a few years, even if they could turn the station around and persuade people to watch it again, something which would require substantial additional investment in some decent programmes.  Meanwhile they would run a strong risk of the licence not being renewed, sending their investment straight down the drain.

Unless an insane investor comes along, therefore, the station is likely to expire completely within a month or two, opening the way for a renewed licence application from HKTV which the government would find it very hard to turn down this time.

Meanwhile the station still limps feebly along.  The English evening news, now curtailed to 15 minutes, shows little sign of being edited and turns up some entertaining bloopers.  Apparently all the pilots of the Taiwanese airline that had a crash recently are going to be "evacuated" (evaluated).  Even more surprisingly, the Costa Concordia was "a floating hotel 290 km long".  That being the distance from Hong Kong to Shantou, it's not surprising it was so difficult to salvage - unless they mean 290 m, the sunken ship's real length.

And as for the sports news, why does Bo Leung insist on referring to every goalkeeper as "the custodian"?  That's a pretentious word that sports hacks occasionally use for stylistic variety, but no ordinary football fan would do so - the goalie or the keeper will do nicely, thank you.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Overlooking the Obvious

Ten facts that should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent person here, but apparently not to the Hong Kong government:
  1. Hong Kong is already grossly overpopulated and doesn't have room for more people.
  2. A growing population will need more green space for relaxation and recreation, not less, so we should stop eating away at it for other purposes.
  3. Pushing through the government's blatantly undemocratic political reform proposal is more likely to exacerbate discontent in Hong Kong than to eliminate it.
  4. With more and more people and a finite supply of land, the village house policy is clearly unsustainable (apart from being a scam whereby "New Territories villagers" who don't even live in Hong Kong any more come back to grab their piece of subsidised land).
  5. There is a limit to the number of tourists Hong Kong can accept without straining its infrastructure to breaking point.
  6. The bridge to Macau will never be economically viable or environmentally sensible.
  7. If you're going to build a high speed railway between two cities (not a bad ideas in itself), the termini should be at major transport intersections to facilitate onward travel, not stuck in the middle of nowhere.
  8. As one of the richest cities in the world (in terms of GDP per capita), Hong Kong could easily afford to eliminate poverty and give all its citizens a decent standard of living - there is absolutely no reason why 80-year-old ladies should be reduced to scavenging cardboard boxes to survive.
  9. When small businesses complain that they can't afford to give their workers a better deal, it's not because wages are too high, but a) because too much of their revenue goes to paying inflated commercial rents, and/or b) they're greedy (pick one or both).
  10. When the mainland insists on selling us more water than we need at a price much higher than other cities in China pay, it's time to look again at the economics of desalination, not just meekly accept whatever non-negotiable deal is on the table.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Why didn't someone tell me about this before?

In response to press reports of people being paid to join the Alliance for Sleaze and Disharmony's march on Sunday, organiser Robert Chow reverted to the feeble "everybody's doing it" defence and claimed that people are also being paid (or at least bribed with free meals) to join pro-democracy rallies.  All I can say is that I wish I'd known about this earlier.  Like hundreds of thousands of other Hongkongers, I have turned out year after year in sweltering heat or pouring rain to speak out for Hong Kong's rights and freedoms, and never received a cent or a sandwich for my trouble - not even my bus fare.

So, where do I collect my arrears?

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Next to a Landfill - the Best Place to Buy Property

Nobody in Hong Kong wants to live near a landfill, as we've seen in the recent spate of nimbyism over the government's expansion proposals.  Yet paradoxically, there are great advantages to buying property right next to one.

True, while the landfill is in operation, you will suffer from the smell, filthy dusty air, and infestations of flies.  But once it is decommissioned, you will have something few Hong Kong property owners can enjoy - at least a ten-year guarantee of an unimpeded green view.  While others watch despairingly as reclamation or new buildings block the open views they paid dearly for, you will relish the sight of a verdant forest gradually spreading over the former garbage dump as it settles down and decomposes.  Nothing can be built on it until this process finishes.

Friday, May 16, 2014

Have We Got News For You

Watching the news in Hong Kong, it is often hard to shake off the feeling that the whole broadcast is one elaborate - and not even very funny - satire.  Take the first half of last night's ATV news for example:
  • Beijing expresses concern over the anti-Chinese riots in Vietnam - which are remarkably reminiscent of the anti-Japanese riots that break out in China from time to time over similar perceived insults to national sovereignty.  Of course the PRC government could stop the whole problem in seconds by announcing that China would remove its oil rig from the disputed waters off Vietnam, but...
  • Hong Kong's Financial Secretary announces that in the face of the LegCo budget filibuster, he will withdraw funding from the Hospital Authority and higher education - presumably so the money can be spent on more important social needs, like the White Elephant Bridge to Macau or the inflated salaries of overpaid but underskilled government ministers.
  • He also announces that he will not talk with the radical legislators leading the filibuster because he is opposed to their demands.   Isn't that why they need to talk?  If they already agreed on everything, they would have no need to discuss their differences in the hope of reaching a compromise.
  • By the way, who was the marionette-like figure lurking behind John Tsang's right shoulder and nodding sympathetically on cue at the FS's words of supposed wisdom?
  • The government announces that it will not include demands for civic nomination in the next round of consultation on the 2017 CE elections, thereby making it clear that the first round - the results of which have not even been released yet - was a meaningless exercise which will, as we feared, be ignored in favour of whatever the government has been told to do already by its puppet-masters in Beijing.  They could at least be smart enough to pretend to be listening to the people, but that would require some degree of intelligence.
  • To add insult to insult, Carrie Lam asks those planning to vote in Occupy Central's coming referendum to "consider whether it provides them with a genuine choice".  Er, would that be by comparison with the fake choices offered by the government, or what? If no genuinely democratic candidate is permitted to run in 2017, I suggest a write-in vote for Mr. Bean - we certainly need a leader with more substance than the present crowd.
  • The Consumer Council warns that energy drinks contain high levels of sugar and caffeine.  Hello?  Isn't that why people drink them?
"You couldn't make this stuff up" may be a cliché, but no other response seems appropriate to the farce that passes for news in Hong Kong.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Going Nowhere Slowly - and paying for it

"Does anyone care?" might be a more appropriate question than the one posed by the Pro-China Morning Post.  The Hong Kong people never asked to have their hard-earned money spent on this ruinously expensive project, and are hardly likely to be bothered by the prospect of it being delayed by a couple of years.  Like our other great white elephant infrastructure projects - the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge and the proposed third airport runway - the rail link reflects the hubris of the local and mainland governments rather than the real needs of Hong Kong.

What we should be worried about is the high probability that the delay will lead to yet more of our money being demanded to build this line from nowhere to nowhere - poorly connected at both ends.  And what we should perhaps be investigating is why the delay appears to have come as a sudden surprise to our government - adding Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung to the long list of government ministers who should be kicked out, which already includes those responsible for Justice, Finance, Constitutional Affairs, Development, Education, and Commerce and Economic Development.  (Come to think of it, Hong Kong's housing situation probably justified his removal much earlier, but that's by the by.)

No big project suddenly slips its timetable by two years - there is always a series of small delays acting as warning signs which gradually accumulate.  If the government did not spot these signs, then it was not monitoring the project adequately.  Expect the usual response - a round of hand-wringing, at the end of which nobody will be held responsible.
While we're on the subject of railways, whatever happened to the second steam locomotive of the pair brought back to Hong Kong from the Philippines some years ago?  One of the pair, which were once used on a long-defunct narrow-gauge line from Fanling to Shataukok, quite properly sits in the Hong Kong Railway Museum in Taipo (see picture above, from Wikipedia).  The other appeared to have vanished - rusting away, rumour had it, in the MTR depot at Fo Tan.  Since the government acquired it with public money, shouldn't it be on display somewhere where the Hong Kong public can enjoy it?

Well, apparently our lords and masters decided otherwise; according to the fascinating Industrial History of Hong Kong website, which has a picture of the line in operation (above), it was intended to restore the second loco to working order, but "after languishing at Fo Tan for several years it was donated to a narrow gauge railway in Wales catering for tourists" - apparently the Vale of Rheidol Railway, since a photo shows it at Aberystwyth (in terrible condition, one might add - see below). Did the Hong Kong government ever ask the Hong Kong public whether they wanted to keep it?  Just another example of our money being splashed around without consultation.

Sunday, April 06, 2014

Signs of Confusion

Why a Well Women Clinic?  Wouldn't it be more useful to have a clinic for sick women?  Taipo.
"Overpayments Accepted" sounds so much nicer than "We rip you off by not giving change", don't you agree?  Market Square, Helmsley, Yorkshire, UK.
Hope no one misreads this as "Letter" and tries to pop their mail in there!  It does look like a mail box.  Somewhere I can't remember in the UK.
DAB - hhmmm...  Wonder if the Hong Kong government is trying a little subliminal advertising here?
You have to admire any hotel that displays Basil Fawlty at its front door!  Damn fine beer, too.  The Buckingham Hotel in Buxton, Derbyshire Peak District, UK.

Wednesday, March 05, 2014

So What?

The South China Morning Post has another of its patented "no useful information" online polls today.
So do the 73% think that Albert Ho should have had his knuckles rapped more firmly for being a naughty boy, or do they think that browsing soft porn is a perfectly intelligent response to the tedium of having to listen to John Tsang wrongly predicting a budget deficit for the 5th (or is it 6th) consecutive year?  I fear we shall never know.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

The Big Budget Question

With everything we love about Hong Kong, from press freedom to our country parks, seemingly under sustained assault at present, the annual budget seems curiously irrelevant this year.  Financial Secretary John Tsang used his budget speech as another opportunity to repeat his gloomy prediction that the SAR will run out of money in a few years, despite having bigger reserves than most countries many times our size.

No doubt his figures will be endlessly picked over by analysts; however, no one is likely to answer the really big budget question. If a private company employed a Chief Financial Officer who year after year predicted that the company would make a modest loss, but in the event it repeatedly turned in massive profits, he would surely be fired as incompetent.  So why is someone who gets his sums wrong year after year still in charge of our economy?

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Value Added

A T-shirt is a T-shirt is a T-shirt, or why Gertrude Stein would not have done well in the fashion business:
 Factory price HK$10

Street market price HK$20
Chain store price HK$40
Fancy boutique price HK$200




Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Chicken Spittle

ATV News last night reported that Shu Yuelong, director of the Chinese National Influenza Centre, said that in the long term, authorities will have to reconsider allowing chickens to be raised in backyard farms.  This is getting things exactly the wrong way round.  Science should be evidence-based, but there is no evidence that small farms are the problem here.

For centuries, people around the world have kept a few chickens running around in their back yards, and bird flu was never a significant problem.  Far from this, it is in fact the giant factory farms of today that are the source of the problem.  Cram hundreds of chickens into row upon row of prison-like cages in unhealthy conditions, feed them an unnatural diet, and you have the perfect environment for any disease to spread quickly from one enfeebled bird to another.

Even before considering the cruelty involved, these "farms" should be eliminated.  Naturally reared birds may cost more, but they are less likely to put your life at risk - indeed a recent scientific study finds their eggs are better for you.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Go to the Mirror, Comrade!

This is good news - perhaps they could start by looking at some secret offshore accounts in the British Virgin Islands.  Although of course if you're in China, those accounts don't exist.  A case of the pot calling the kettle white?