Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I also wonder why China suddenly went from a purposful wreck of an economy to a techie powerhouse in ~20 years.

It's more along the lines of 40 years rather than 20.

China's economy improved because Mao died, and everyone was very happy to do away with the principles of the genocidal lunatic who killed millions and millions of people over the years, though they did do away with those principles in his name at first to placate what loyalists he had.

They also broke ties with the economically stagnant USSR and therefore by definition were immediately our best friends. It just goes to show, not even schools of thought that are radical even within Communism could make Russia and China like each other.

[Karnewarrior]

I also wonder why China suddenly went from a purposful wreck of an economy to a techie powerhouse in ~20 years.

It's more along the lines of 40 years rather than 20.

China's economy improved because Mao died, and everyone was very happy to do away with the principles of the genocidal lunatic who killed millions and millions of people over the years, though they did do away with those principles in his name at first to placate what loyalists he had.

They also broke ties with the economically stagnant USSR and therefore by definition were immediately our best friends. It just goes to show, not even schools of thought that are radical even within Communism could make Russia and China like each other.

No no, I mean the commercial.

Also I didn't realize they'd ever been our friend. I was pretty sure we disliked them even when they were on our side in WWII against the Japanese.

The commercial struck me as being way advanced for what looked like a perfectly normal keynote. Maybe it was the Chinese version of Microsoft?

[misko27]

If China want's to take over the U.S, I feel sorry for China.

Not because it's impossible they'd win, but because I think America would ingest their culture and shit it out on the sidewalk in front of their house. Not to mention they'd seriously over extend themselves and the U.S would never ever ever submit to foriegn rule of any sort. China is a center culture, but we are too. There would be way to many repercussions of taking over the U.S fiscally or politically or militarily or whatever.

China doesn't want to take over the U.S. They're happy having another stick to drive us around with, they don't want the responsibility of holding our leash.

I also wonder why China suddenly went from a purposful wreck of an economy to a techie powerhouse in ~20 years. Maybe to keep up with Japan? I've noticed the big powers seem to move west, and the only place west of the U.S is East Asia. Japan could well be the next centre of Learning, if they aren't already. Lucky us, to have them as our national Girlfriend._{I suppose it could be China too, but they don't seem the type. South Korea? Nah, too much Starcraft.}

Simply in terms of economic power, probably Japan if not china.

I also wonder why china Is often cited as about to "take over". The economic cost alone would be enormous, possibly tanking the entirety of the world economy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I was pretty sure we disliked them even when they were on our side in WWII against the Japanese.

During WWII China was divided between the Nationalists, who we preferred, and the Communists, who we didn't. The latter ended up taking over after the war and the former holed up on the island of Taiwan, where they have remained ever since. However, during the war itself they were in ceasefire to fight Japan.

The US hadn't completely emerged from its isolationist shell at the time, so our preference for the nationalists wasn't all-consuming or anything. It was a low-key issue with the Axis around.

[Reelya]

China started their current modernization drive in 1978. So they've really been driving things up for 35 years, not 20. It's just that prior to the mid 1990's the west basically wrote them off. Smug racism played a part, just like how the 1950's - 1970's generation scoffed at Japan.

Then we "suddenly" noticed that China was pretty damn powerful economically. Now, we hear "well, they may be industrious but their products are crap, and they can only copy. Monkey see, monkey do".

But this is the EXACT thing people said about Japan right before their economy took off. China sells America crap because that's the optimal "price point". If Americans valued quality, China would make higher quality products.

A similar thing happened with Japanese cars in the mid 1980's. Reagan tried protectionism against the cheap shitty Japanese imported cars, by imposing quotas. Japan immediately stopped importing cheap cars and made luxury cars instead. Hell, if you can only sell 100,000 units a year, they might as well be sports cars. America failed to realize that Japan was quite capable of NOT producing shit-box cars, but they were doing so purely because it was the most profitable thing to do.

[Shadowlord]

We were providing support to the Nationalists, and they were doing the vast majority of the fighting and sustained the vast majority of the combat losses _{(unless you are in China, apparently)}. After the war Mao's communists were in a stronger position and were able to take over, with the assistance of the Soviet Union.

(We were also allied with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany during WWII. Stalin was almost as bad as Hitler (but better at keeping it a secret), but I don't think anyone but Hitler wanted to invade the USSR, so...)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Patton wanted to invade the USSR after we were done with the Axis, but he was kind of crazy and wanted to invade everyone. His plan involved using many nukes and enslaving the Germans to make up for our manpower disadvantage.

But then he died in a car crash.

[Flying Dice]

Patton would have done well as a strategy gamer.

[GreatJustice]

Please explain (because "giving the appearance of a surplus" is an intriguing idea, and I would like to see your evidence).

He decreased public debt each year, yet he did so by increasing intragovernmental debt, in short, borrowing from other government programs, especially Social Security (The treasury website I believe Kon provided has the necessary information, and a google search would suffice if not). At no point did the public debt "surplus" overtake the overall deficit, so to say Clinton ever ran a surplus would be untrue.

[Kon]

I also wonder why China suddenly went from a purposful wreck of an economy to a techie powerhouse in ~20 years.

It's more along the lines of 40 years rather than 20.

China's economy improved because Mao died, and everyone was very happy to do away with the principles of the genocidal lunatic who killed millions and millions of people over the years, though they did do away with those principles in his name at first to placate what loyalists he had.

They also broke ties with the economically stagnant USSR and therefore by definition were immediately our best friends. It just goes to show, not even schools of thought that are radical even within Communism could make Russia and China like each other.

A stronger Chinese economy is good for the United States. A stronger U.S. economy is good for China. I don't like either Romney or Obama bashing China for political gain. Mostly, they seem to be trying to one-up each other on being anti-China. In the last debate though, Romney brought up his promise to declare China a currency manipulator on his 1st day in office. Obama responded, correctly, that the Yuan has been going up, not down, versus the U.S. dollar.

http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/stock-charts/?CA=0&CB=0&CC=0&CD=0&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&C5=0&C5D=0&C6=0&C7=0&C7D=0&C8=0&C9=0&CF=0&D8=0&DB=0&DC=0&D9=0&DA=0&D1=0&symbol=%2fCNYUSD&SZ=0&PT=8

Actually, if the Chinese were depreciating the Yuan, I wouldn't mind at all. It means their goods would cost less. This is bad for businesses competing with Chinese exporters, but it is good for just about everyone else. If you were buying something  from China, and the Chinese company offered you a 10% discount, would you say "No thanks, I would rather pay more?"

The ones helped most by a cheap Yuan are the poor. If I have to pay a 5% or 10% more for something from China, it won't affect me nearly as much as it would affect a poor person.

Anyway, it is not a zero-sum game. People seem to think that the better China's economy does, the worse it is for the U.S.

Also, the more dependent on each other's economies the U.S. and China become, the less the chance of a military confrontation.

China has come a long way in moving toward a capitalist economy (that's good, by the way). But they still have a long way to go in regards to individuial freedoms. I believe that, as their middle class continues to grow and become more affluent, they will demand and get more individual freedom.

By the way, having seen the future, I recommend you buy YINN. It's going to triple in the next two years.

[Reelya]

Yeah, you're right about China. Hell, the Marshall Plan and related European aid were specifically enacted so that the American industries that grew during WWII would have some customers to export stuff to. You don't do much business if everyone else is bankrupt.

China props up America through buying US treasuries, even though they're returning LESS than you put in, due to the interest being lower than inflation. They do that for the same reason US gave aid after WWII.

[Zrk2]

I also wonder why China suddenly went from a purposful wreck of an economy to a techie powerhouse in ~20 years.

It's more along the lines of 40 years rather than 20.

China's economy improved because Mao died, and everyone was very happy to do away with the principles of the genocidal lunatic who killed millions and millions of people over the years, though they did do away with those principles in his name at first to placate what loyalists he had.

They also broke ties with the economically stagnant USSR and therefore by definition were immediately our best friends. It just goes to show, not even schools of thought that are radical even within Communism could make Russia and China like each other.

A stronger Chinese economy is good for the United States. A stronger U.S. economy is good for China. I don't like either Romney or Obama bashing China for political gain. Mostly, they seem to be trying to one-up each other on being anti-China. In the last debate though, Romney brought up his promise to declare China a currency manipulator on his 1st day in office. Obama responded, correctly, that the Yuan has been going up, not down, versus the U.S. dollar.

http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/stock-charts/?CA=0&CB=0&CC=0&CD=0&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&C5=0&C5D=0&C6=0&C7=0&C7D=0&C8=0&C9=0&CF=0&D8=0&DB=0&DC=0&D9=0&DA=0&D1=0&symbol=%2fCNYUSD&SZ=0&PT=8

Actually, if the Chinese were depreciating the Yuan, I wouldn't mind at all. It means their goods would cost less. This is bad for businesses competing with Chinese exporters, but it is good for just about everyone else. If you were buying something  from China, and the Chinese company offered you a 10% discount, would you say "No thanks, I would rather pay more?"

The ones helped most by a cheap Yuan are the poor. If I have to pay a 5% or 10% more for something from China, it won't affect me nearly as much as it would affect a poor person.

Anyway, it is not a zero-sum game. People seem to think that the better China's economy does, the worse it is for the U.S.

Also, the more dependent on each other's economies the U.S. and China become, the less the chance of a military confrontation.

China has come a long way in moving toward a capitalist economy (that's good, by the way). But they still have a long way to go in regards to individuial freedoms. I believe that, as their middle class continues to grow and become more affluent, they will demand and get more individual freedom.

By the way, having seen the future, I recommend you buy YINN. It's going to triple in the next two years.

However, if America exports all their manufacturing jobs to China, they won't have a functional economy because all current economic models require growth in order to continue. Without manufacturing their can be no growth in the economy because nothing is being produced. Thus a weak yuan is damaging to the US economy.

Canada saw this exact thing play out. For years our dollar was 60-70 cents US, so we produced lots of goods and shipped them to America to sell, but lately our dollar has jumped up to parity and all these manufacturing plants have closed. While the increase in the Canadian dollar relative to the USD was not the only contributing factor, it certainly wasn't a small one either.

[Kon]

However, if America exports all their manufacturing jobs to China, they won't have a functional economy because all current economic models require growth in order to continue. Without manufacturing their can be no growth in the economy because nothing is being produced. Thus a weak yuan is damaging to the US economy.

Canada saw this exact thing play out. For years our dollar was 60-70 cents US, so we produced lots of goods and shipped them to America to sell, but lately our dollar has jumped up to parity and all these manufacturing plants have closed. While the increase in the Canadian dollar relative to the USD was not the only contributing factor, it certainly wasn't a small one either.

Certainly what the U.S. economy needs most is growth.

But it seems the U.S. is intentionally trying to devalue the dollar while accusing China of devaluing the Yuan even though the U.S. dollar has been going down versus the Yuan.

My main point is that too many people see global economics as a zero-sum game. Trade is good for both sides. It is not the case that China doing well economically is bad for the U.S. Let me said ahead of time that don't I mean to come across as lecturing -- you may well be more knowledable about trade them I am. But, let's say country A has lots of apples but no bananas, and country B has lots of bananas but no apples. They can trade apples for bananas, and both be trading something of lower value for something of greater value. For country A, apples are cheap because they are plentiful, and bananas are expensive because they are rare. Same thing applies if you are buying rather than bartering. There is a price range such that country A can buy bananas for a price in that range from country B, who can then buy apples with the cash from country A and both come out ahead. In each transaction, the buyer is paying less than the product is worth and the seller is selling the product for more than it is worth. This only works because it is not a zero sum game -- worth is relative.

There are products that China can make much more cheaply than we can. We should see that as a good thing, not a bad thing. If a business or individual buys stuff from China because it is cheaper than buying the same stuff from others, they have more money with which to buy other things.

[darkflagrance]

However, if America exports all their manufacturing jobs to China, they won't have a functional economy because all current economic models require growth in order to continue. Without manufacturing their can be no growth in the economy because nothing is being produced. Thus a weak yuan is damaging to the US economy.

Canada saw this exact thing play out. For years our dollar was 60-70 cents US, so we produced lots of goods and shipped them to America to sell, but lately our dollar has jumped up to parity and all these manufacturing plants have closed. While the increase in the Canadian dollar relative to the USD was not the only contributing factor, it certainly wasn't a small one either.

Certainly what the U.S. economy needs most is growth.

But it seems the U.S. is intentionally trying to devalue the dollar while accusing China of devaluing the Yuan even though the U.S. dollar has been going down versus the Yuan.

My main point is that too many people see global economics as a zero-sum game. Trade is good for both sides. It is not the case that China doing well economically is bad for the U.S. Let me said ahead of time that don't I mean to come across as lecturing -- you may well be more knowledable about trade them I am. But, let's say country A has lots of apples but no bananas, and country B has lots of bananas but no apples. They can trade apples for bananas, and both be trading something of lower value for something of greater value. For country A, apples are cheap because they are plentiful, and bananas are expensive because they are rare. Same thing applies if you are buying rather than bartering. There is a price range such that country A can buy bananas for a price in that range from country B, who can then buy apples with the cash from country A and both come out ahead. In each transaction, the buyer is paying less than the product is worth and the seller is selling the product for more than it is worth. This only works because it is not a zero sum game -- worth is relative.

There are products that China can make much more cheaply than we can. We should see that as a good thing, not a bad thing. If a business or individual buys stuff from China because it is cheaper than buying the same stuff from others, they have more money with which to buy other things.

It makes me wonder to whose interest it will be to raise the spectre of fear against China. There is no question that the prospect of increased outsourcing and competition from China will be lucrative political capital to those able to harness it. On the other hand, they would theoretically be harming the interests of business and trade.

[Heron TSG]

By the way, having seen the future, I recommend you buy YINN. It's going to triple in the next two years.

https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSEARCA:YINN

Which means that it'll just about reach its April 21, 2011 value in two years. That's not horrible, I guess.