Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Vosilla who wrote (159655)	6/30/2020 1:32:38 AM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Recommended By twmoore Respond to of 218007

Am too far away to kibitz sensibly re <<Trump>> since I get the views by media and know media weaponised, and can lead judgement astray. Am also too far away to comment re the nature of USA protest, since I know for sure that the faraway USA views (all views I have read) are wrong re the HK protests, some term, and others term riots. In the case of HK, there were many groups triggered due to general level of discontent, and all it took was a single issue to get folks on to the streets, followed by hijacking / diversion of the crowds. The triggering issue was simple, “should there be an extradition law put in place that would allow HK to send a confessed murderer to Taiwan for trial, and if so, should the same extradition law also allow suspected criminals be sent to mainland China for trial”. However, as HK UBI (universal basic income) was one-off US$1,200 which gets one no where, and there were dark-hands with control over bank accounts that were used to sustain agitation and were frozen / to be confiscated, and there were many (enough) employers who answered the call of duty to fire employees who participate in unauthorized (protests / demonstrations in HK, as in Britain, must be authorized by the police), the situation still must conform to economic truth. Now in HK the issue is “should mainland China be allowed to dictate a national security law to HK”. The background is that China / Britain agreed that there ought to be a national security law applicable in HK, and that HK should pass such a law. Due to politics, HK has not been able to pass such a law since 1997 handover, and as sovereign, as Britain once did enough laws, China dictated a law for HK to pass. The protests so far have been very modest. The law is now a must-be because foreign money supposedly discovered over the past 12 months for support of last round of street actions. If so, and I have enough reasons to believe so, simply because many HK folks hold dual nationalities, then of course. What would any other nation do when one of its cities is encouraged to turmoil? HK is ready to get going again, looking to the future, to integrate and connect. Businesses prefer stability, law & order, etc etc. The market says so finance.yahoo.com