[quote]winkel wrote:
orion wrote:
winkel wrote:
I have lived in Shanghai for the last 13 years and can most certainly say the difference between what one sees in the big cities like Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen etc and the hinterland is like night and day.
Despite increasing urbanization over the last many years the countryside is still where the vast majority of the population lives and even if poverty might be taking it a little far (if we define poverty as inability to afford food and shelter only) there is certainly not a lot of excess means for which to buy consumer products.
The Chinese 1.2 billion people market is a myth.
You see the lack of money to buy consumer goods, I see a vast pool to draw workers and consumers from.
They have several Mexicos in their backyard.
They can’t really consume if they do not have the means for which to consume. If memory serves exports to the US account for around USD 270-300 billion - that amount of product cannot simply be diverted to domestic consumption. Setting aside the fact that people cannot afford it, where is the demand going to come from?
It is not like it is untapped potential - people today are already supplied by factories catering mainly for domestic consumption.
Agree there is a huge supply of cost effective labor but already at this early point of the global economical crisis thousands upon thousands of factories have been shut down leaving workers unemployed. This from only a few %point drop in exports. Imagine if the entire USD 270-300 billion export to USA were to disappear.
This situation will become much worse before it gets better and domestic consumption will not alleviate this in any significant way.
[quote]4-13 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
4-13 wrote:
Oh yeah I forgot to mention… please stop the Red Herrings and stick with the discussion.
You said, “hundreds of millions of Chinese” are still conducting subsistence farming. You’re wrong. You’ve lost. Deal with it like a man and admit it.
Do you know what subsistence farming means?
I have provided links - all you need to do is read them - and understand what they are saying.
Either bring proof that I am wrong, or shut the fuck up.
No I don’t know what subsistence farming is because I never got past highschool [/sarcasm]
I’m trying to make myself more credible by mentioning my experience in China? You need to reread my post. All I said was that you would get a different view of China if you visited it.
Please your obviously grasping at straws with all those posts you’ve made above. China has a large rural population… so what? Only a little over 300 million people (312m in 2003; I’m willing to bet that number has decreased by now) are employed in agriculture but you would have us believe that all of them are involved in subsistence farming. Heck, you would have us believe that the entire rural population is involved in farming.
In 2001:
“The rural poor population has dropped from 96 million to 29.26 million, and its proportion to the total rural population has declined form 11 percent to 3 percent.”
In 1978-1985:
“the number of poverty-stricken people with problems feeding and clothing themselves decreased from 250 million to 125 million, to shrink to 14.8 percent of the total population in the rural areas; and the number of poverty-stricken people went down by 17.86 million annually on average.”
So yes, you would be right if we were living during the times of the Cultural Revoluation. But like I said, we’re not and your view of China is hopelessy outdated. Tens of millions conducting subsistence farming? Sure. “Hundreds of millions of Chinese” conducting subsistence farming? Nope.
Please keep in mind that there is incredible rate of people who are moving to urban areas - away from subsistence farming. Yes, I recognize they are still poor and yes, there are many people living in poverty but… they are no longer involved in subsistence farming.
Seriously, you should have been gracious and admit that you were just exagerrating or something but you’ve dug yourself into a deeper hole. Judging by your behavior on this thread, I’m willing to bet that your next post will involve you trying to redeem yourself in whatever way you can. Probably in the form of an ad hom involving the f-word. Hey but I could be wrong. Maybe you might man up. [/quote]
You are using China’s poverty line numbers. Even in 2008, it is still less than $200 per year. It is beyond me how you continually ignore this fact.
You have no grasp of the term subsistence farming. As recent as 2006, there were over 700 billion Chinese living in rural areas. Go research the the term. Then come back. Subsistence farming is pretty much a way of life in rural China - even today. Sorry to burst your bubble, kiddo.
Unlike your 3 month visit - there is a guy posting here who actually lived there who understands what I am saying, and basically agrees with my assertion.
IF you can come up with some credible evidence to suggest that there are not more than 100 million Chinese engaged in subsistence farming, then perhaps I can be swayed. But you haven’t.
If you can come p with numbers to support your stupid notion that there are fewer people in China below the poverty line than the US, I will kiss your ass. If the poverty line was the US Poverty line, there would probably be a billion Chinese beneath it. This fact escapes you.
Now - unless you have something else to contribute beyond trying to prove me wrong - perhaps you should find another thread to play in.
I know, maybe you could start a thread about logical fallacies. you seem to revel in the opportunity to find them in my posts - whether they exist or not.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
US Bonds are the safest investment on the planet.
[/quote]
I disaggree with this statement. The US debt, re-packaged and sold as Bonds has almost single handedly been responsible for the collapse of world ecomonies.
Although I do aggree that without the western consumer market, China’s economy would see a massive downturn but would not collapse.
Before anyone jumps down my neck questioning my intelligence or experience, let me just say I am not here to argue or to pick a fight, it’s just my opinion and the opinion of nearly all of the people I work with.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
4-13 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
4-13 wrote:
Oh yeah I forgot to mention… please stop the Red Herrings and stick with the discussion.
You said, “hundreds of millions of Chinese” are still conducting subsistence farming. You’re wrong. You’ve lost. Deal with it like a man and admit it.
Do you know what subsistence farming means?
I have provided links - all you need to do is read them - and understand what they are saying.
Either bring proof that I am wrong, or shut the fuck up.
No I don’t know what subsistence farming is because I never got past highschool [/sarcasm]
I’m trying to make myself more credible by mentioning my experience in China? You need to reread my post. All I said was that you would get a different view of China if you visited it.
Please your obviously grasping at straws with all those posts you’ve made above. China has a large rural population… so what? Only a little over 300 million people (312m in 2003; I’m willing to bet that number has decreased by now) are employed in agriculture but you would have us believe that all of them are involved in subsistence farming. Heck, you would have us believe that the entire rural population is involved in farming.
In 2001:
“The rural poor population has dropped from 96 million to 29.26 million, and its proportion to the total rural population has declined form 11 percent to 3 percent.”
In 1978-1985:
“the number of poverty-stricken people with problems feeding and clothing themselves decreased from 250 million to 125 million, to shrink to 14.8 percent of the total population in the rural areas; and the number of poverty-stricken people went down by 17.86 million annually on average.”
So yes, you would be right if we were living during the times of the Cultural Revoluation. But like I said, we’re not and your view of China is hopelessy outdated. Tens of millions conducting subsistence farming? Sure. “Hundreds of millions of Chinese” conducting subsistence farming? Nope.
Please keep in mind that there is incredible rate of people who are moving to urban areas - away from subsistence farming. Yes, I recognize they are still poor and yes, there are many people living in poverty but… they are no longer involved in subsistence farming.
Seriously, you should have been gracious and admit that you were just exagerrating or something but you’ve dug yourself into a deeper hole. Judging by your behavior on this thread, I’m willing to bet that your next post will involve you trying to redeem yourself in whatever way you can. Probably in the form of an ad hom involving the f-word. Hey but I could be wrong. Maybe you might man up.
You are using China’s poverty line numbers. Even in 2008, it is still less than $200 per year. It is beyond me how you continually ignore this fact.
You have no grasp of the term subsistence farming. As recent as 2006, there were over 700 billion Chinese living in rural areas. Go research the the term. Then come back. Subsistence farming is pretty much a way of life in rural China - even today. Sorry to burst your bubble, kiddo.
Unlike your 3 month visit - there is a guy posting here who actually lived there who understands what I am saying, and basically agrees with my assertion.
IF you can come up with some credible evidence to suggest that there are not more than 100 million Chinese engaged in subsistence farming, then perhaps I can be swayed. But you haven’t.
If you can come p with numbers to support your stupid notion that there are fewer people in China below the poverty line than the US, I will kiss your ass. If the poverty line was the US Poverty line, there would probably be a billion Chinese beneath it. This fact escapes you.
Now - unless you have something else to contribute beyond trying to prove me wrong - perhaps you should find another thread to play in.
I know, maybe you could start a thread about logical fallacies. you seem to revel in the opportunity to find them in my posts - whether they exist or not.
[/quote]
Red Herring. How you’re not able to understand that the poverty line is different in different countries is beyond me. But your alter ego in the internet prevents you from yielding even on this point. Simple yes or no question: given the poverty line for China and the US, is the percentage of people living under the poverty line lower in China? Yes or no?
Its really simple. Stop trying to ignore it.
No You don’t know what subsistence farming is. A family that puts a tiny plot in the backyard to grow a few cabbages to save some money when the father’s job is at the local mine does not constitute subsistence farming. How you are unable to figure that out is beyond me.
My father was an engineer. My family kept a small plot in the corner of the backyard where we grew various plants. Does that count as subsistence farming? Heck. You would have us believe that my entire neighbourhood in middle-white America in suburban haven were all involved in subsistence farming.
Fewer people below the poverty line in China? You need to stop attacking strawmans and face reality.
If you want to define subsistence farming as pretty much anybody growing anything. Fine, maybe we were arguing past each other. As you noticed, I did not make any attempt at insulting you by calling you kiddo (another attempt at mind-reading) so can you please extend to me the same courtesy?
[quote]London Runner wrote:
rainjack wrote:
US Bonds are the safest investment on the planet.
I disaggree with this statement. The US debt, re-packaged and sold as Bonds has almost single handedly been responsible for the collapse of world ecomonies.
Although I do aggree that without the western consumer market, China’s economy would see a massive downturn but would not collapse.
Before anyone jumps down my neck questioning my intelligence or experience, let me just say I am not here to argue or to pick a fight, it’s just my opinion and the opinion of nearly all of the people I work with.
I’m more then qualified to speak on this subject.
LR[/quote]
I disagree with your disagreement. I also disagree with your statement that the entire world condition is the fault of US bonds.
But I am more than interested to hear your reasoning behind your statements.
Red Herring. How you’re not able to understand that the poverty line is different in different countries is beyond me. But your alter ego in the internet prevents you from yielding even on this point. Simple yes or no question: given the poverty line for China and the US, is the percentage of people living under the poverty line lower in China? Yes or no?
Its really simple. Stop trying to ignore it.[/quote]
My God. Unless you use the same poverty line, you are comparing apples and oranges. If we use China’s poverty line on the US, there is no one in poverty in the US. If we use the US poverty line for China, their per capita income is under the poverty line.
Until you can understand this very simple flaw in your position, there is no point in attempting to continue.
Stop with the logical fallacy bullshit. You haven’t called one right yet.
[quote]2. No You don’t know what subsistence farming is. A family that puts a tiny plot in the backyard to grow a few cabbages to save some money when the father’s job is at the local mine does not constitute subsistence farming. How you are unable to figure that out is beyond me.
My father was an engineer. My family kept a small plot in the corner of the backyard where we grew various plants. Does that count as subsistence farming? Heck. You would have us believe that my entire neighbourhood in middle-white America in suburban haven were all involved in subsistence farming.[/quote]
Seriously, you don’t want to get into a debate about farming with me. I have a BS in agriculture, and the bulk of my current business is consulting with farmers and ranchers.
I have no fucking clue what your dad’s profession has to do with this discussion.
You are just flat fucking wrong if you think your backyard garden is even agriculture.
Until you can understand the definition of the term "subsistence farming, there is no point in continuing.
I have been here for 5 fucking years. If you don’t like the way I post, don’t fucking read me. If you want to be treated like a fucking school boy - then don’t engage me. You should address your whining elsewhere.
For a definition of subsistence farming, or subsistence agriculture - which is probably a much more accurate term for what we are talking about, go here:
It has nothing to do with back yard gardens.
IF you can’t understand the fundamental flaw in your position with respect to subsistence after reading the wiki link, then I fear it is not me who too proud to admit how utterly fucking wrong they are.
Red Herring. How you’re not able to understand that the poverty line is different in different countries is beyond me. But your alter ego in the internet prevents you from yielding even on this point.
Simple yes or no question: given the poverty line for China and the US, is the percentage of people living under the poverty line lower in China? Yes or no?
Its really simple. Stop trying to ignore it.
My God. Unless you use the same poverty line, you are comparing apples and oranges. If we use China’s poverty line on the US, there is no one in poverty in the US. If we use the US poverty line for China, their per capita income is under the poverty line.
Until you can understand this very simple flaw in your position, there is no point in attempting to continue.
Stop with the logical fallacy bullshit. You haven’t called one right yet.
No You don’t know what subsistence farming is. A family that puts a tiny plot in the backyard to grow a few cabbages to save some money when the father’s job is at the local mine does not constitute subsistence farming. How you are unable to figure that out is beyond me.
My father was an engineer. My family kept a small plot in the corner of the backyard where we grew various plants. Does that count as subsistence farming? Heck. You would have us believe that my entire neighbourhood in middle-white America in suburban haven were all involved in subsistence farming.
Seriously, you don’t want to get into a debate about farming with me. I have a BS in agriculture, and the bulk of my current business is consulting with farmers and ranchers.
I have no fucking clue what your dad’s profession has to do with this discussion.
You are just flat fucking wrong if you think your backyard garden is even agriculture.
Until you can understand the definition of the term "subsistence farming, there is no point in continuing.
If you want to define subsistence farming as pretty much anybody growing anything. Fine, maybe we were arguing past each other. As you noticed, I did not make any attempt at insulting you by calling you kiddo (another attempt at mind-reading) so can you please extend to me the same courtesy?
I have been here for 5 fucking years. If you don’t like the way I post, don’t fucking read me. If you want to be treated like a fucking school boy - then don’t engage me. You should address your whining elsewhere.
For a definition of subsistence farming, or subsistence agriculture - which is probably a much more accurate term for what we are talking about, go here:
It has nothing to do with back yard gardens.
IF you can’t understand the fundamental flaw in your position with respect to subsistence after reading the wiki link, then I fear it is not me who too proud to admit how utterly fucking wrong they are.
[/quote]
Its a simple yes or no question. Of course answering it would mean you would have to concede something but your ego can’t allow that.
Maybe you should try reading because all you have done is attack straw man. Of course you don’t have a clue because you can’t follow simple logic. Since you have no regard for simple logic it has become apparent that you are only here to defend your alter ego in some fantasty world you created to escape reality.
School boy? No no, the only person whining here is you because you can’t stand the fact that someone disagrees with you. The school boy would be you because you can’t discuss this like a grown up. You feel the need to use profanity. Very mature.
Oh by the way, the link proves everything I have been saying. Thank you for disproving yourself yet again.
Since you can’t deal with this maturely, I’ll politely end this here. You lost the argument so you’ve decided to resort to childish insults. Unlike you, I don’t really care about defending myself over the internet because I didn’t create some internet persona to allow me interact with people. Have fun in that tiny little world of yours.
Red Herring. How you’re not able to understand that the poverty line is different in different countries is beyond me. But your alter ego in the internet prevents you from yielding even on this point. Simple yes or no question: given the poverty line for China and the US, is the percentage of people living under the poverty line lower in China? Yes or no?
Its really simple. Stop trying to ignore it.
My God. Unless you use the same poverty line, you are comparing apples and oranges. If we use China’s poverty line on the US, there is no one in poverty in the US. If we use the US poverty line for China, their per capita income is under the poverty line.
Until you can understand this very simple flaw in your position, there is no point in attempting to continue.
Stop with the logical fallacy bullshit. You haven’t called one right yet.
No You don’t know what subsistence farming is. A family that puts a tiny plot in the backyard to grow a few cabbages to save some money when the father’s job is at the local mine does not constitute subsistence farming. How you are unable to figure that out is beyond me.
My father was an engineer. My family kept a small plot in the corner of the backyard where we grew various plants. Does that count as subsistence farming? Heck. You would have us believe that my entire neighbourhood in middle-white America in suburban haven were all involved in subsistence farming.
Seriously, you don’t want to get into a debate about farming with me. I have a BS in agriculture, and the bulk of my current business is consulting with farmers and ranchers.
I have no fucking clue what your dad’s profession has to do with this discussion.
You are just flat fucking wrong if you think your backyard garden is even agriculture.
Until you can understand the definition of the term "subsistence farming, there is no point in continuing.
If you want to define subsistence farming as pretty much anybody growing anything. Fine, maybe we were arguing past each other. As you noticed, I did not make any attempt at insulting you by calling you kiddo (another attempt at mind-reading) so can you please extend to me the same courtesy?
I have been here for 5 fucking years. If you don’t like the way I post, don’t fucking read me. If you want to be treated like a fucking school boy - then don’t engage me. You should address your whining elsewhere.
For a definition of subsistence farming, or subsistence agriculture - which is probably a much more accurate term for what we are talking about, go here:
It has nothing to do with back yard gardens.
IF you can’t understand the fundamental flaw in your position with respect to subsistence after reading the wiki link, then I fear it is not me who too proud to admit how utterly fucking wrong they are.
Its a simple yes or no question. Of course answering it would mean you would have to concede something but your ego can’t allow that.
Maybe you should try reading because all you have done is attack straw man. Of course you don’t have a clue because you can’t follow simple logic. Since you have no regard for simple logic it has become apparent that you are only here to defend your alter ego in some fantasty world you created to escape reality.
School boy? No no, the only person whining here is you because you can’t stand the fact that someone disagrees with you. The school boy would be you because you can’t discuss this like a grown up. You feel the need to use profanity. Very mature.
Oh by the way, the link proves everything I have been saying. Thank you for disproving yourself yet again.
Since you can’t deal with this maturely, I’ll politely end this here. You lost the argument so you’ve decided to resort to childish insults. Unlike you, I don’t really care about defending myself over the internet because I didn’t create some internet persona to allow me interact with people. Have fun in that tiny little world of yours. [/quote]
It is quite evident you don’t care to defend yourself, or your position at all.
You are the one who called me out, and the one who is cring about the treatment you have received.
IF you got “backyard gardens = subsistence farming” from the link, you are beyond help.
And FYI - it is not a strawman to point out flaws in your argument.
But, you are 100% on missing the fucking logical fallicies - so I am not surprised in the least.
I don’t care if someone disagrees with me. All they need to do is prove tat I am wrong. You have no ability to do so because you want me to take what you say at face value, and ignore common sense.
Saying you are right over and over, using unbalanced comparisons, and having absolutely no clue about a term central to your argument is hardly proving anything.
Now, if you want to discuss something you actually know about, then maybe we could have a decent argument. But this is not that subject.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
London Runner wrote:
rainjack wrote:
US Bonds are the safest investment on the planet.
I disaggree with this statement. The US debt, re-packaged and sold as Bonds has almost single handedly been responsible for the collapse of world ecomonies.
LR
I disagree with your disagreement. I also disagree with your statement that the entire world condition is the fault of US bonds.
But I am more than interested to hear your reasoning behind your statements.
[/quote]
I never said the entire world condition was the fault of US bonds, but I did say that they were ALMOST single handedly responible.
The main reason was good old fashioned human greed. The world has lived of credit for so long, that it was bound to implode.
People were trying to live millionare lifestyles without the means to support their habbits. Specifically those that had more then 1-2 mortgages on their homes, 3 cars per house all bought on credit, and a wallet full of credit cards. These people were working month by month just to make their payments.
And the other was still greed, but this time on the part of the countries and Investment Banks that thought they could make an easy buck off the debt of a nation.
I worked in fixed income when I fist got into IB, and those guys were so smug about investing in Sub Prime, and this was when I was fresh out of Uni, and even I knew it would come back to bite them in the ass, but I was a newbie, so my ideas didn’t matter.
But now I’m an IB (fund management) and most of those guys got made redundant or got fired. So I guess I came up trumps in the end.
[quote]London Runner wrote:
rainjack wrote:
London Runner wrote:
rainjack wrote:
US Bonds are the safest investment on the planet.
I disaggree with this statement. The US debt, re-packaged and sold as Bonds has almost single handedly been responsible for the collapse of world ecomonies.
LR
I disagree with your disagreement. I also disagree with your statement that the entire world condition is the fault of US bonds.
But I am more than interested to hear your reasoning behind your statements.
I never said the entire world condition was the fault of US bonds, but I did say that they were ALMOST single handedly responible.
The main reason was good old fashioned human greed. The world has lived of credit for so long, that it was bound to implode.
People were trying to live millionare lifestyles without the means to support their habbits. Specifically those that had more then 1-2 mortgages on their homes, 3 cars per house all bought on credit, and a wallet full of credit cards. These people were working month by month just to make their payments.
And the other was still greed, but this time on the part of the countries and Investment Banks that thought they could make an easy buck off the debt of a nation.
I worked in fixed income when I fist got into IB, and those guys were so smug about investing in Sub Prime, and this was when I was fresh out of Uni, and even I knew it would come back to bite them in the ass, but I was a newbie, so my ideas didn’t matter.
But now I’m an IB (fund management) and most of those guys got made redundant or got fired. So I guess I came up trumps in the end.
Fear and Greed man. Fear and Greed!
Have a good day.
LR
[/quote]
I don’t know that greed is exclusive to the U.S.
The two main causes for the crash, which may or may not be exclusive to the US are:
Illegal naked shorting.
Mark-to-market accounting.
The world-wide government bailout of the financial sector will prove to be the cause for no one learning their lessons.
Actually, I thought the melt-down had more to do with a general lack of accountability within the housing/financing systems. And I agree with you there, it’s not just common to the U.S. As far as the world-wide government bailout goes, economic power has and always will be as important to a state’s survival as armaments.
The state seeking to insure it’s survival will do what it feels it must. I’m shocked more at the arbitrariness of who gets helped than I am at the help itself.
RJ, while you make potent arguments, for the love of fuck quit using the word utter.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I don’t know that greed is exclusive to the U.S.
The two main causes for the crash, which may or may not be exclusive to the US are:
Illegal naked shorting.
Mark-to-market accounting.
The world-wide government bailout of the financial sector will prove to be the cause for no one learning their lessons.
[/quote]
Not at all, that greed is all over the world, I still know people trying to live a credit card lifestyle.
Banks etc are still trying to push credit cards on us, even after all this shit.
As from the short selling, it did mess things up a lot, before the ban on short selling. BUT, from a fund managers stand point, we have to make sure our clients don’t go bust, otherwise we’d be out of jobs, and make no money.
No one is going to learn from this, even though people have already seen what it did in Japan with the Zombie companies with all their bail outs. We can just expect it to happen again in the future, but on a much larger scale next time.
[quote]Amused59 wrote:
Actually, I thought the melt-down had more to do with a general lack of accountability within the housing/financing systems. And I agree with you there, it’s not just common to the U.S. As far as the world-wide government bailout goes, economic power has and always will be as important to a state’s survival as armaments.
The state seeking to insure it’s survival will do what it feels it must. I’m shocked more at the arbitrariness of who gets helped than I am at the help itself.
RJ, while you make potent arguments, for the love of fuck quit using the word utter.[/quote]
I get in ruts.
I like the word “utter”.
I was utterly unaware that I used the word so much.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The US is not the only market for Chinese made products. Chinese businesses will sell anywhere they can. That is a fact.
The fundamentals that make the Chinese economy strong compared to the American economy is that the Chinese as a whole have virtually no debt and they produce more than they consume.
Anyone that still incorrectly believes, like RJ, that consumption drives the economy must ask the question why China hasn’t decided to start consuming its way to more wealth? After all, they have a much larger population with which to consume the stuff they already produce.
I agree that the US is not the only market,but it is certainly the biggest one.
Seeing how the current conditions have led to so many factories closing in China,and seeing the discontent of the employees on some segments on tv,how do you think the population would react to wholesale layoffs and unemployment?There would be civil unrest.I think this would make the political rulers there very,very uncomfortable.
This is certainly what would happen if there was a sharp drop off in US demand for their products,in my opinion.
You are aware that they Chinese are a giant market in and off themselves?
If they stop from artificially keeping their currency low and to buy American debt they also have the money to consume their own products.
They simply need to change their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
There is quite a bit of profit differential between chopsticks and LCD TV’s.
Not really.
It depends what customers want at the time.
If they cannot afford LCD TV´s there is no profit in them at all.
That is why the Chinese would go through a tough period where they would need to shift their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
I am arguing that the Chinese are in a unique position to do so because their production base was in constant shift the last 20 years.
Right now they are lending you money to buy their products.
Why not keep the money and consume their production themselves?
[/quote]
Exactly what Chinese demand are you speaking of? And with what money is their citizenry going to buy products with? Have you been there? I have. The poverty in China is still huge despite the explosion of skycrapers you see on tv in Beijing and Shanghai.
It is a myth that the new prosperity of China allows most consumer to buy what they want. While Chinese buyers are many, and incomes are rising, most citizens remain too poor to buy what they want at this time.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The US is not the only market for Chinese made products. Chinese businesses will sell anywhere they can. That is a fact.
The fundamentals that make the Chinese economy strong compared to the American economy is that the Chinese as a whole have virtually no debt and they produce more than they consume.
Anyone that still incorrectly believes, like RJ, that consumption drives the economy must ask the question why China hasn’t decided to start consuming its way to more wealth? After all, they have a much larger population with which to consume the stuff they already produce.
I agree that the US is not the only market,but it is certainly the biggest one.
Seeing how the current conditions have led to so many factories closing in China,and seeing the discontent of the employees on some segments on tv,how do you think the population would react to wholesale layoffs and unemployment?There would be civil unrest.I think this would make the political rulers there very,very uncomfortable.
This is certainly what would happen if there was a sharp drop off in US demand for their products,in my opinion.
You are aware that they Chinese are a giant market in and off themselves?
If they stop from artificially keeping their currency low and to buy American debt they also have the money to consume their own products.
They simply need to change their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
There is quite a bit of profit differential between chopsticks and LCD TV’s.
Not really.
It depends what customers want at the time.
If they cannot afford LCD TV´s there is no profit in them at all.
That is why the Chinese would go through a tough period where they would need to shift their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
I am arguing that the Chinese are in a unique position to do so because their production base was in constant shift the last 20 years.
Right now they are lending you money to buy their products.
Why not keep the money and consume their production themselves?
Exactly what Chinese demand are you speaking of? And with what money is their citizenry going to buy products with? Have you been there? I have. The poverty in China is still huge despite the explosion of skycrapers you see on tv in Beijing and Shanghai.
It is a myth that the new prosperity of China allows most consumer to buy what they want. While Chinese buyers are many, and incomes are rising, most citizens remain too poor to buy what they want at this time.[/quote]
As long as they pay Americans to buy their products they obviously must have money.
At the least the amount that is in American bonds could be consumed by the Chinese.
[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The US is not the only market for Chinese made products. Chinese businesses will sell anywhere they can. That is a fact.
The fundamentals that make the Chinese economy strong compared to the American economy is that the Chinese as a whole have virtually no debt and they produce more than they consume.
Anyone that still incorrectly believes, like RJ, that consumption drives the economy must ask the question why China hasn’t decided to start consuming its way to more wealth? After all, they have a much larger population with which to consume the stuff they already produce.
I agree that the US is not the only market,but it is certainly the biggest one.
Seeing how the current conditions have led to so many factories closing in China,and seeing the discontent of the employees on some segments on tv,how do you think the population would react to wholesale layoffs and unemployment?There would be civil unrest.I think this would make the political rulers there very,very uncomfortable.
This is certainly what would happen if there was a sharp drop off in US demand for their products,in my opinion.
You are aware that they Chinese are a giant market in and off themselves?
If they stop from artificially keeping their currency low and to buy American debt they also have the money to consume their own products.
They simply need to change their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
There is quite a bit of profit differential between chopsticks and LCD TV’s.
Not really.
It depends what customers want at the time.
If they cannot afford LCD TV´s there is no profit in them at all.
That is why the Chinese would go through a tough period where they would need to shift their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
I am arguing that the Chinese are in a unique position to do so because their production base was in constant shift the last 20 years.
Right now they are lending you money to buy their products.
Why not keep the money and consume their production themselves?
Exactly what Chinese demand are you speaking of? And with what money is their citizenry going to buy products with? Have you been there? I have. The poverty in China is still huge despite the explosion of skycrapers you see on tv in Beijing and Shanghai.
It is a myth that the new prosperity of China allows most consumer to buy what they want. While Chinese buyers are many, and incomes are rising, most citizens remain too poor to buy what they want at this time.
As long as they pay Americans to buy their products they obviously must have money.
At the least the amount that is in American bonds could be consumed by the Chinese.
[/quote]
‘Pay’ Americans to buy their products? As a policy, the government and ‘captains of industry’ (not the citizenry) foster and have a trade relationship with America because they produce products cheaply and sell them to Americans at a price the average Chinese person could never afford. China’s average household income in 2004 was still less than $1800.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The US is not the only market for Chinese made products. Chinese businesses will sell anywhere they can. That is a fact.
The fundamentals that make the Chinese economy strong compared to the American economy is that the Chinese as a whole have virtually no debt and they produce more than they consume.
Anyone that still incorrectly believes, like RJ, that consumption drives the economy must ask the question why China hasn’t decided to start consuming its way to more wealth? After all, they have a much larger population with which to consume the stuff they already produce.
I agree that the US is not the only market,but it is certainly the biggest one.
Seeing how the current conditions have led to so many factories closing in China,and seeing the discontent of the employees on some segments on tv,how do you think the population would react to wholesale layoffs and unemployment?There would be civil unrest.I think this would make the political rulers there very,very uncomfortable.
This is certainly what would happen if there was a sharp drop off in US demand for their products,in my opinion.
You are aware that they Chinese are a giant market in and off themselves?
If they stop from artificially keeping their currency low and to buy American debt they also have the money to consume their own products.
They simply need to change their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
There is quite a bit of profit differential between chopsticks and LCD TV’s.
Not really.
It depends what customers want at the time.
If they cannot afford LCD TV´s there is no profit in them at all.
That is why the Chinese would go through a tough period where they would need to shift their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
I am arguing that the Chinese are in a unique position to do so because their production base was in constant shift the last 20 years.
Right now they are lending you money to buy their products.
Why not keep the money and consume their production themselves?
Exactly what Chinese demand are you speaking of? And with what money is their citizenry going to buy products with? Have you been there? I have. The poverty in China is still huge despite the explosion of skycrapers you see on tv in Beijing and Shanghai.
It is a myth that the new prosperity of China allows most consumer to buy what they want. While Chinese buyers are many, and incomes are rising, most citizens remain too poor to buy what they want at this time.
As long as they pay Americans to buy their products they obviously must have money.
At the least the amount that is in American bonds could be consumed by the Chinese.
‘Pay’ Americans to buy their products? As a policy, the government and ‘captains of industry’ (not the citizenry) foster and have a trade relationship with America because they produce products cheaply and sell them to Americans at a price the average Chinese person could never afford. China’s average household income in 2004 was still less than $1800.[/quote]
And yet China has trillions in US bonds, gold and other currencies.
That wealth has been produced by the Chinese people and could just as easily be consumed by them-
No matter how poor they are, their money must have come from somewhere.
I do not know what is so hard to accept about the idea that they simply could cut out the middleman.
[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The US is not the only market for Chinese made products. Chinese businesses will sell anywhere they can. That is a fact.
The fundamentals that make the Chinese economy strong compared to the American economy is that the Chinese as a whole have virtually no debt and they produce more than they consume.
Anyone that still incorrectly believes, like RJ, that consumption drives the economy must ask the question why China hasn’t decided to start consuming its way to more wealth? After all, they have a much larger population with which to consume the stuff they already produce.
I agree that the US is not the only market,but it is certainly the biggest one.
Seeing how the current conditions have led to so many factories closing in China,and seeing the discontent of the employees on some segments on tv,how do you think the population would react to wholesale layoffs and unemployment?There would be civil unrest.I think this would make the political rulers there very,very uncomfortable.
This is certainly what would happen if there was a sharp drop off in US demand for their products,in my opinion.
You are aware that they Chinese are a giant market in and off themselves?
If they stop from artificially keeping their currency low and to buy American debt they also have the money to consume their own products.
They simply need to change their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
There is quite a bit of profit differential between chopsticks and LCD TV’s.
Not really.
It depends what customers want at the time.
If they cannot afford LCD TV´s there is no profit in them at all.
That is why the Chinese would go through a tough period where they would need to shift their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
I am arguing that the Chinese are in a unique position to do so because their production base was in constant shift the last 20 years.
Right now they are lending you money to buy their products.
Why not keep the money and consume their production themselves?
Exactly what Chinese demand are you speaking of? And with what money is their citizenry going to buy products with? Have you been there? I have. The poverty in China is still huge despite the explosion of skycrapers you see on tv in Beijing and Shanghai.
It is a myth that the new prosperity of China allows most consumer to buy what they want. While Chinese buyers are many, and incomes are rising, most citizens remain too poor to buy what they want at this time.
As long as they pay Americans to buy their products they obviously must have money.
At the least the amount that is in American bonds could be consumed by the Chinese.
‘Pay’ Americans to buy their products? As a policy, the government and ‘captains of industry’ (not the citizenry) foster and have a trade relationship with America because they produce products cheaply and sell them to Americans at a price the average Chinese person could never afford. China’s average household income in 2004 was still less than $1800.
And yet China has trillions in US bonds, gold and other currencies.
That wealth has been produced by the Chinese people and could just as easily be consumed by them-
No matter how poor they are, their money must have come from somewhere.
I do not know what is so hard to accept about the idea that they simply could cut out the middleman.
[/quote]
While you make a good points about CHina owning a bunch of our bonds, you seem to ignore that they aren’t the first country to do this. In fact, they aren’t the second. or the third.
It’s cyclical.
And your notion that they are paying us to buy their shit is just fucking stupid.
Either that, or I am not getting the memo on where to go to get these magical Chinese payments.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The US is not the only market for Chinese made products. Chinese businesses will sell anywhere they can. That is a fact.
The fundamentals that make the Chinese economy strong compared to the American economy is that the Chinese as a whole have virtually no debt and they produce more than they consume.
Anyone that still incorrectly believes, like RJ, that consumption drives the economy must ask the question why China hasn’t decided to start consuming its way to more wealth? After all, they have a much larger population with which to consume the stuff they already produce.
I agree that the US is not the only market,but it is certainly the biggest one.
Seeing how the current conditions have led to so many factories closing in China,and seeing the discontent of the employees on some segments on tv,how do you think the population would react to wholesale layoffs and unemployment?There would be civil unrest.I think this would make the political rulers there very,very uncomfortable.
This is certainly what would happen if there was a sharp drop off in US demand for their products,in my opinion.
You are aware that they Chinese are a giant market in and off themselves?
If they stop from artificially keeping their currency low and to buy American debt they also have the money to consume their own products.
They simply need to change their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
There is quite a bit of profit differential between chopsticks and LCD TV’s.
Not really.
It depends what customers want at the time.
If they cannot afford LCD TV´s there is no profit in them at all.
That is why the Chinese would go through a tough period where they would need to shift their production to satisfy Chinese demand.
I am arguing that the Chinese are in a unique position to do so because their production base was in constant shift the last 20 years.
Right now they are lending you money to buy their products.
Why not keep the money and consume their production themselves?
Exactly what Chinese demand are you speaking of? And with what money is their citizenry going to buy products with? Have you been there? I have. The poverty in China is still huge despite the explosion of skycrapers you see on tv in Beijing and Shanghai.
It is a myth that the new prosperity of China allows most consumer to buy what they want. While Chinese buyers are many, and incomes are rising, most citizens remain too poor to buy what they want at this time.
As long as they pay Americans to buy their products they obviously must have money.
At the least the amount that is in American bonds could be consumed by the Chinese.
‘Pay’ Americans to buy their products? As a policy, the government and ‘captains of industry’ (not the citizenry) foster and have a trade relationship with America because they produce products cheaply and sell them to Americans at a price the average Chinese person could never afford. China’s average household income in 2004 was still less than $1800.
And yet China has trillions in US bonds, gold and other currencies.
That wealth has been produced by the Chinese people and could just as easily be consumed by them-
No matter how poor they are, their money must have come from somewhere.
I do not know what is so hard to accept about the idea that they simply could cut out the middleman.
While you make a good points about CHina owning a bunch of our bonds, you seem to ignore that they aren’t the first country to do this. In fact, they aren’t the second. or the third.
It’s cyclical.
And your notion that they are paying us to buy their shit is just fucking stupid.
Either that, or I am not getting the memo on where to go to get these magical Chinese payments.
[/quote]
Well, if you really had to pay for all of the US governments “services”, you would probably have to pay twice as much taxes.
But you don´t, because the federal government simply issues bonds.
So the net effect is that you would have less money to pay for Chinese stuff if the Chinese would not buy US bonds.