Thanksgiving in HK

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3006
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Thanksgiving in HK

Post by Sertorio » Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:21 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:04 am

You see, the US and China are in a economic war. This is better than a shooting war. But it can also decimate China's economy. China still has state owned enterprises which are of course losing money. (Sertorio, take note. Publicly owned enterprises which Communists advocate don't work.)

Shutting them down will result in massive unemployment. So China subsidized them with the money they earned through their exports. Their internal problems have made Xi behave the instinctive way a totalitarian Marxist does - tighter control of everything. Actually, its the opposite that will solve his problems - more liberalization of the economy.

Something has got to give. I just don't know when.
China's domestic market, which is highly undeveloped, will be enough to allow for China's economy to keep growing for the next couple of decades. China can afford a reduction of exports without suffering anything.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 3619
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Thanksgiving in HK

Post by Doc » Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:17 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:25 pm
Doc wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:47 am
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:27 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:15 pm

A sea of American flags, Sertorio.
If I were the Hong Kong people, the last flag I would hoist would be the American one. It's the surest way to get China to smash the democracy movement in Hong Kong. Any other flag, the Monaco or the Gibraltar ones, for instance, would be a lot wiser...Hong Kong people may be good at making money but they do not seem to be capable of thinking things through... A bit like yourself, Cass...
What they got from it (This is at least the second time they have flown American flags) is a US commitment to end Hong Kong's special financial status with the US should the CCP take Hong Kong by force. Which would cause great damage to China's economy in the long run. Plus if the US did that other countries would follow.
Hong Kong may be useful to China, but it isn't vital. China has Shanghai, which fulfills very much the same functions of Hong Kong.
Without Hong Kong Special status Chinese banks would have a great deal more trouble operating in the US and Europe. Shanghai does not have special status. That is a huge difference
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3444
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Thanksgiving in HK

Post by cassowary » Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:01 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:21 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:04 am

You see, the US and China are in a economic war. This is better than a shooting war. But it can also decimate China's economy. China still has state owned enterprises which are of course losing money. (Sertorio, take note. Publicly owned enterprises which Communists advocate don't work.)

Shutting them down will result in massive unemployment. So China subsidized them with the money they earned through their exports. Their internal problems have made Xi behave the instinctive way a totalitarian Marxist does - tighter control of everything. Actually, its the opposite that will solve his problems - more liberalization of the economy.

Something has got to give. I just don't know when.
China's domestic market, which is highly undeveloped, will be enough to allow for China's economy to keep growing for the next couple of decades. China can afford a reduction of exports without suffering anything.
I am not so sure. In my opinion, consumer spending is maxed out. You see, the Chinese people like to save for a rainy day. So they are not likely to change their habits. You can see this from the "ghost cities", that China has. I have shown pictures of this before to Neverfail.

They have overbuilt apartments for domestic demand that is not there. It is the same as factories. There is overcapacity too.

So domestic demand is not picking up the slack. Maybe this slack can be taken up if the Chinese spend like Americans. But they don't. They have to export. I suspect that the "Belt and Road", initiative was done with this overcapacity in mind. Now that China has all the infrastructure they need, how to create jobs for their people? Simple. China builds a foreign country's infrastructure, like say, a new port.

The workers, engineers are all Chinese. Construction materials were all from China, helping to create manufacturing jobs. Bank financing were also from Chinese banks. They hand over the port to the poor Third World country and expect them to make a profit from which, they will pay back the Chinese banks. But guess what? The Third World people may now have the "hardware", (ie the new port) but they don't have the "software" (ie brains, work habits etc) to make it profitable.

So it failed and they can't pay the Chinese banks. (You see Sertorio, people become poor because they are bums and not because capitalism has oppressed them. Your worldview is wrong. The Germans and Japanese had their infrastructure destroyed (ie the "hardware") during the war. But they had the "software" and so recovered quickly.)

Anyway, lets get back to China.

China has a partial capitalist economy. Thus it has State Owned Enterprises as well. This of course comes from the Marxist idea that the means of production must belong to the state. So they are inefficient and loss making. What private sector it has is very profitable and China used the tax revenue to subsidize its loss making industries and keep people employed. The leadership fears shutting them down will cause unemployment and unrest.

Their hold on power rests on continuing economic growth. They are a one party system - a dictatorship. In a democracy, when the economy goes into recession, usually the ruling party will be thrown out and a new party will have a go. The system continues. Someday, the new party will lose the favor of the voters and the first party will return into power. A democracy can survive a depression. But China cannot afford a recession. its system cannot survive. A recession means social unrest because there is no other way to get new leadership.

The CCP leadership lives in fear of losing power. Loss of power means losing their personal wealth and mistresses. (Remember what my granny said? Politicians only want power, money and girls.) It could also mean jail or even death. But booms and busts are part of the capitalist system which China is partially.

How to cope with the occasional downturns that is part and parcel of capitalism? China has responded in the traditional Communist way - tighten control. I don't mean just tighter central control over the politics. But they also responded with tighter control over whatever market economy it has.

For example, the Chinese government has placed shadowy groups of people inside China's top companies to guide their decisions. No doubt, Xi sees Elon Musks decision to invest in China with disdain for capitalism. Musk is transferring technology to China which is opposed to the US. In his instinctive Marxist mind, capitalists cannot be trusted to do the right thing for their countries or for the Communist Party. Their prime interest is to make a profit and not serve the Communist Party.

This shift means that gradually, the top Chinese companies will become less efficient as government interference increases over the years. What would you do if you were Xi? Giving free reign to capitalism will mean recessions which their system may not survive. Controlling businessman's decisions can prolong economic growth by getting business to do what they would not do in their own interests.

For example, Xi can order the banks to lend more money to the developers to build more "ghost cities", even when there is no demand. Similarly, they can order banks to lend money to manufacturers to build more factories even though there is an overcapacity. It is central planning which we all know does not work.

To make matters worse, Trump is behaving like a bull in the China shop with his trade war.

When will the music shop?
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 4360
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: ...like Humpty Dumpty?

Post by neverfail » Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:39 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:01 pm

For example, Xi can order the banks to lend more money to the developers to build more "ghost cities", even when there is no demand. Similarly, they can order banks to lend money to manufacturers to build more factories even though there is an overcapacity. It is central planning which we all know does not work.

To make matters worse, Trump is behaving like a bull in the China shop with his trade war.

When will the music shop?
Cass, are you convinced that Xi is setting China up for a fall?

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3444
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: ...like Humpty Dumpty?

Post by cassowary » Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:55 pm

neverfail wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:39 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:01 pm

For example, Xi can order the banks to lend more money to the developers to build more "ghost cities", even when there is no demand. Similarly, they can order banks to lend money to manufacturers to build more factories even though there is an overcapacity. It is central planning which we all know does not work.

To make matters worse, Trump is behaving like a bull in the China shop with his trade war.

When will the music shop?
Cass, are you convinced that Xi is setting China up for a fall?
I think he is trying his best to preserve the power of CCP by keeping the economy growing. As I said earlier, the legitimacy of his government (a dictatorship) rests on continued economic growth. Unlike democracies, the CCP may not survive a recession. In a democracy, you typically have two equally powerful parties alternate in power.

When the people are fed up (such as when there is a recession) with the ruling party, they let the other party have a go. In the case of China, it means you have to revolt to get a different government. So they are scared of what is part of the normal economic cycle of booms and busts.

Though they have liberalized the economy somewhat, the rulers of China still have a Marxist mindset. That means central planning. Each year, Xi will tell his minions, he wants to see, say, 6% economic growth. They will deliver, by hook or by crook. In a market economy, businessmen make decisions based on price signals.

If a developer thinks, there is no more domestic demand for housing, he stops building. The banks lend less and profits go down. If a manufacturer thinks that next year, demand will decline, he might shut some factories. This leads to the usual booms and busts. But a dictatorship like the CCP are scared of busts. It means unemployment. People get angry at the ruling party. They can't vote them out like in a democracy to "let off steam". So they revolt.

So what is a Socialist dictator to do? Well, he has decreed that he wants to see, say, 6% GDP growth. That means you need to build more apartments/office blocks and build more factories - whether there is demand or not. But the developer can't sell his apartments and the manufacturer can't sell his products.

In such circumstances, the developer can not pay back his bank loans with his cash flow in a normal free market economy. He goes bust. The non performing loans will result in banks going bust too. It's all part of the free market system. But in China, the god like Emperor Xi has ordered 6% growth!!!

So this means his minions will tell the banks not to foreclose and in fact to lend more money to the developers and manufacturers to tide over their cash flow problems, hoping that demand will pick up in the future. The recession is postponed like kicking the can down the road. But when it comes, it will be a doozy.

Now comes Trump and his trade war. :lol: :lol: :lol:
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 4360
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: ...like Humpty Dumpty?

Post by neverfail » Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:07 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:55 pm
neverfail wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:39 pm

Cass, are you convinced that Xi is setting China up for a fall?
I think he is trying his best to preserve the power of CCP by keeping the economy growing. As I said earlier, the legitimacy of his government (a dictatorship) rests on continued economic growth. Unlike democracies, the CCP may not survive a recession. In a democracy, you typically have two equally powerful parties alternate in power.

When the people are fed up (such as when there is a recession) with the ruling party, they let the other party have a go. In the case of China, it means you have to revolt to get a different government. So they are scared of what is part of the normal economic cycle of booms and busts.

Though they have liberalized the economy somewhat, the rulers of China still have a Marxist mindset. That means central planning. Each year, Xi will tell his minions, he wants to see, say, 6% economic growth. They will deliver, by hook or by crook. In a market economy, businessmen make decisions based on price signals.

If a developer thinks, there is no more domestic demand for housing, he stops building. The banks lend less and profits go down. If a manufacturer thinks that next year, demand will decline, he might shut some factories. This leads to the usual booms and busts. But a dictatorship like the CCP are scared of busts. It means unemployment. People get angry at the ruling party. They can't vote them out like in a democracy to "let off steam". So they revolt.

So what is a Socialist dictator to do? Well, he has decreed that he wants to see, say, 6% GDP growth. That means you need to build more apartments/office blocks and build more factories - whether there is demand or not. But the developer can't sell his apartments and the manufacturer can't sell his products.

In such circumstances, the developer can not pay back his bank loans with his cash flow in a normal free market economy. He goes bust. The non performing loans will result in banks going bust too. It's all part of the free market system. But in China, the god like Emperor Xi has ordered 6% growth!!!

So this means his minions will tell the banks not to foreclose and in fact to lend more money to the developers and manufacturers to tide over their cash flow problems, hoping that demand will pick up in the future. The recession is postponed like kicking the can down the road. But when it comes, it will be a doozy.

Now comes Trump and his trade war. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Cass, are you aware that, beginning with the Han Dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD) which established the template for every successive Chinese state that followed: the Chinese Imperial dynasties of yore all operated centrally controlled (imperial) economies not unlike that of China today?

If you believe that the Chinese states of yore were any friends of free market capitalism then you are arguably indulging in yet another one of your frequent fantasies.

Key to imperial Chinese economic control/management were the state owned and operated iron and salt industries:
There were great innovations in metallurgy. In addition to Zhou-dynasty China's (c. 1050 – 256 BCE) previous inventions of the blast furnace and cupola furnace to make pig iron and cast iron, respectively, the Han period saw the development of steel and wrought iron by use of the finery forge and puddling process. With the drilling of deep boreholes into the earth, the Chinese used not only derricks to lift brine up to the surface to be boiled into salt, but also set up bamboo-crafted pipeline transport systems which brought natural gas as fuel to the furnaces. Smelting techniques were enhanced with inventions such as the waterwheel-powered bellows; the resulting widespread distribution of iron tools facilitated the growth of agriculture. For tilling the soil and planting straight rows of crops, the improved heavy-moldboard plough with three iron plowshares and sturdy multiple-tube iron seed drill were invented in the Han, which greatly enhanced production yields and thus sustained population growth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_a ... an_dynasty
Both were located in Sichuan province. In the case of iron smelting the coincidence of high grade coking coal and iron ore deposits close together allowed the Chinese iron masters to invent the blast furnace method allowing then to produce iron metal on an industrial scale which no one else was able to match until 18th century England (when Abraham Darby re-invented the method separately). In the West the path of iron working took the path of hand forging but in China (where they were able to heat up the furnaces at higher temperatures thanks to the box bellows - another Chinese innovation) the preferred method was casting. Thanks to this the Imperial ironworks were able to mass-produce all kinds of ferrous metals tools and utensils for distribution right across China. The point is that these ironworks, while a giant industrial complex were usually the only one of its type in China. So the entire Chinese empire was dependent on this one production point - with the state the monopoly supplier.

By contrast, in Europe the production of iron, though on a smaller scale, was much more widespread and scattered as was the fabrication of tools, utensils and weapons of war. This was because the laborious hand forging could not be concentrated in any one spot - and because it was done by forging each and every item had to be made as a one-off. So most villages had their own smithy.

The same was true of salt production which was produced by capturing natural gas from brine that bubbled up from pipes driven into underground salt brine reservoirs. The salt was extracted by boiling up the brine in large iron vats over burning jets of natural gas (the Chinese were the first to use natural gas this way). Since they had no way to turn off the natural gas the making of salt was a 24 hours per day operation year around. From this large, sole state industrial complex the whole of China (i believe even some countries beyond) obtained its entire supply of salt.

What about private enterprise? The status of merchant was a low one in Imperial China - the high status people were the scholar bureaucrats who served the Emperor as public administrators. A certain amount of private enterprise was tolerated but kept under strict control - and of course taxed. The big stuff was entirely in the hands of the state. Indeed, the China of those venerable times of yore to an uncanny degree resembled the China of today.

This is where you get it so wildly wrong in claiming that the rulers of China have the mindset of Socialist dictators. Their mindset is that of very traditional Chinese rulers from out of past centuries: and so is that of the general populace being ruled.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3444
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: ...like Humpty Dumpty?

Post by cassowary » Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:27 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:07 am

Cass, are you aware that, beginning with the Han Dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD) which established the template for every successive Chinese state that followed: the Chinese Imperial dynasties of yore all operated centrally controlled (imperial) economies not unlike that of China today?

If you believe that the Chinese states of yore were any friends of free market capitalism then you are arguably indulging in yet another one of your frequent fantasies.

Key to imperial Chinese economic control/management were the state owned and operated iron and salt industries:
There were great innovations in metallurgy. In addition to Zhou-dynasty China's (c. 1050 – 256 BCE) previous inventions of the blast furnace and cupola furnace to make pig iron and cast iron, respectively, the Han period saw the development of steel and wrought iron by use of the finery forge and puddling process. With the drilling of deep boreholes into the earth, the Chinese used not only derricks to lift brine up to the surface to be boiled into salt, but also set up bamboo-crafted pipeline transport systems which brought natural gas as fuel to the furnaces. Smelting techniques were enhanced with inventions such as the waterwheel-powered bellows; the resulting widespread distribution of iron tools facilitated the growth of agriculture. For tilling the soil and planting straight rows of crops, the improved heavy-moldboard plough with three iron plowshares and sturdy multiple-tube iron seed drill were invented in the Han, which greatly enhanced production yields and thus sustained population growth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_a ... an_dynasty
Both were located in Sichuan province. In the case of iron smelting the coincidence of high grade coking coal and iron ore deposits close together allowed the Chinese iron masters to invent the blast furnace method allowing then to produce iron metal on an industrial scale which no one else was able to match until 18th century England (when Abraham Darby re-invented the method separately). In the West the path of iron working took the path of hand forging but in China (where they were able to heat up the furnaces at higher temperatures thanks to the box bellows - another Chinese innovation) the preferred method was casting. Thanks to this the Imperial ironworks were able to mass-produce all kinds of ferrous metals tools and utensils for distribution right across China. The point is that these ironworks, while a giant industrial complex were usually the only one of its type in China. So the entire Chinese empire was dependent on this one production point - with the state the monopoly supplier.
The wiki article you quoted merely described the technology available during the Han dynasty. It did not say anything about the state operated or owned the iron factories. That, I think, was your assumption. I honestly don't know the economics of the Han dynasty. I always thought that they were largely agrarian societies. Even if you are right, that the state owned the factories, there were other commercial areas that were private sector owned. China had farmers, merchants, craftsmen and sailors who did not work for the Emperor.

Certainly, China before the CCP took power in 1949, China was a free market economy. You are trying to argue that the means of production was owned by the state even during Imperial times and China today is simply following ancient custom. But how do you explain the period between 1911 and 1949?

Excerpt from link:
Yet the economist Gregory Chow summarizes recent scholarship when he concludes that "in spite of political instability, economic activities carried on and economic development took place between 1911 and 1937," and in short, "modernization was taking place." Up until 1937, he continues, China had a market economy which was "performing well", which explains why China was capable of returning to a market economy after economic reform started in 1978.[2]
So it had a market economy during this period according to economist Gregory Chow. If state control was so ingrained in the Chinese mind, why did Chiang's nationalist not do the same as Mao or Xi? How then can you explain the very capitalist Hongkees and Singaporeans?

The current mindset of Chinese leaders of total control comes from Marx. They distrust capitalism. Certainly, Elon Musk's investment confirms their suspicion that the capitalist will sell you the rope to hang himself.

China does not have a true market economy. How can it, when its great leader Xi can decide what economic growth he wants for the next year and his minions delivers it by building ghost cities?
The Imp :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3444
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Unrest has begun in China

Post by cassowary » Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:09 am

Hong Kong Democracy Slogans heard at mainland Chinese protests
Slogans of Hong Kong’s democratic movement have been reportedly heard at protests in a Chinese city 60 miles to the west.

According to Hong Kong-based Apple Daily—a vocal supporter of the democracy campaign in Hong Kong—chants of “Liberate Maoming! Revolution of our times!” were heard during several days of protest in Maoming.

The chant is a take on the “Liberate Hong Kong” slogan commonly used during protests across the border, where anti-government demonstrations have raged since June.

Protestors also reportedly told Apple Daily reporters that their movement was “just like you [in] Hong Kong.” Both cities share a common Cantonese
:D

They were protesting over a waste incinerator.

The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 4360
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: ...like Humpty Dumpty?

Post by neverfail » Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:40 pm

cassowary wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:27 am

The wiki article you quoted merely described the technology available during the Han dynasty. It did not say anything about the state operated or owned the iron factories. That, I think, was your assumption. I honestly don't know the economics of the Han dynasty. I always thought that they were largely agrarian societies. Even if you are right, that the state owned the factories, there were other commercial areas that were private sector owned. China had farmers, merchants, craftsmen and sailors who did not work for the Emperor.
Well, I admit that I might have overstepped the mark publishing something that I might have read years ago but did not double check. Yet see what this link says about the Eastern Han:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse ... t_and_Iron
The Discourses on Salt and Iron (Chinese: 鹽鐵論; pinyin: Yán Tiě Lùn) was a debate held at the imperial court in 81 BCE on state policy during the Han dynasty in China. The previous emperor, Emperor Wu, had reversed the laissez-faire policies of his predecessors and imposed a wide variety of state interventions, such as creating monopolies on China's salt and iron enterprises, price stabilization schemes, and taxes on capital. These actions sparked a fierce debate as to the policies of the Emperor. After his death, during the reign of Emperor Zhao of Han, the regent Huo Guang called on all the scholars of the empire to come to the capital, Chang'an, to debate the government's economic policies.

The debate was characterized by two opposing factions, the reformists and the modernists. The reformists were largely Confucian scholars who opposed the policies of Emperor Wu and demanded the abolition of the monopolies on salt and iron, an end to the state price stabilization schemes, and huge cuts in government expenditures to reduce the burden on the citizenry. The Modernists supported the continuation of Emperor Wu's policies in order to appropriate the profits of private merchants into state coffers to fund the government's military and colonization campaigns in the north and west.

The results of these debates were mixed. Although the Modernists were largely successful and their policies were followed through most of the Western Han after Emperor Wu, the Reformists repealed these policies in Eastern Han, save for the government monopoly on minting coins.
It seems that government policy that way was inconsistent down through the centuries. There were even periods of the privatization of state assets that resemble those that came into fashion in The West from around 1980 onward.

Yes, China was not just predominantly but overwhelmingly an agrarian society throughout as it has been even during the Communist period up until now. But all that is now changing (for the first time in China's long history) even as we write. Yet it was an agrarian society that was rendered efficiently productive with the help of extraneous factors such as the ready availability of cheap cast iron farming tools and government policies such as massive irrigation schemes.

Certainly, China before the CCP took power in 1949, China was a free market economy. You are trying to argue that the means of production was owned by the state even during Imperial times and China today is simply following ancient custom. But how do you explain the period between 1911 and 1949?

Excerpt from link:
Yet the economist Gregory Chow summarizes recent scholarship when he concludes that "in spite of political instability, economic activities carried on and economic development took place between 1911 and 1937," and in short, "modernization was taking place." Up until 1937, he continues, China had a market economy which was "performing well", which explains why China was capable of returning to a market economy after economic reform started in 1978.[2]
It amazes me that you even bother to mention this truly horrible recent period of Chinese history whose dominant themes were instability, insecurity and opportunistic invasions by the Japanese. Within a decade of the founding of the Chinese republic by Dr Sun Yat Sen real power had drifted out of the hands of the central government in Beijing into the hands of regional warlords - so that instead of a unitary state you had a jigsaw puzzle of provincial fiefdoms. As my mentor pointed out to us during a course on the topic I did on the topic years ago contended "by the mid-1920's anyone could move into Beijing and form a government; but such a government was powerless to implement its policies outside the Beijing city limits".

This was the dismembered China that Chiang Kai Check inherited when he states his takeover in Beijing in 1927 (having first of all massacred his former allies and collaborators,the Communists, outside Shanghai along the way :D ). Chiang subsequently had to rely on support and cooperation by these powerful regional warlords right throughout his rule on the mainland right up until 1949. Of course these power brokers demanded a price.

So as I see it it would not have mattered what official policy Beijing prescribed over this period as the power to implement was not in the central government's hands.

Private enterprise likely won by default as this would have suited the real powers in the land, the provincial warlords and triad chieftains that the Republic of China was riddled with. despite this during the course of the (1937 to 1945) war of resistance against the Japanese invaders Chiangs government, with no other way to provide funding inflated the currency to the point where it was worthless and in so doing ensured that a consensus of public opinion favourable to a change of regime - which of course benefited the Communist side during the ensuing civil war.

It took the Communist victory in 1949 to finally abolish the accursed banes of warlordism and landlordism and get the country functioning again as a unitary state.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Thanksgiving in HK

Post by Milo » Tue Dec 03, 2019 3:21 pm

Here's a very insightful video from someone who has first hand experience.


Post Reply