China Makes Economic Threats

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If there is any doubt about what my opinion is on a given topic - it is soley due to the stupidity of the reader.

You, on the other hand have a 4+ year history of never having enough balls to take a stand. You drape yourself in some sort of self-described genius, and expect those that question you to figure it out for ourselves.
[/quote]

Couldn’t resist, could you Thunderjack?

[quote]
You need to learn the difference between debt and deficit. They are not interchangeable.

You haven’t proven a thing. Your argument is extremely bad. If you were correct - no one would invest in the US be it short or long term.[/quote]

Unless I am mistaken, people invest when they believe they are getting a good return for their money. In this case, the US is seen as a safe place to invest in debt.

Whether or not I am correct has nothing to do with this issue.

Deficit spending is a function of the Congress - not the president - but that is beside the point.

Amazingly, they may just work together on this issue. However, whom do you think spent bazillions of dollars via launching a war into Iraq? If you want to pin this on the tail of Congress, that is fine, but you can’t begin to claim the administration had no hand in it.

Character has dick to do with investment. If that were so - there would be no NYSE - or any other form of investment in this country.

You want character to matter - but it doesn’t. Investment cares only about the bottom line: safety and return. We have both in spades.

No, character of leadership has little to do with investment. I haven’t said it does. You keep focusing on the investment aspect. What you keep ignoring is that character of leadership has a lot to do with relations between countries.

The reason we are hearing statements about economic threats is potentially because of the character of leadership.

Are you able to get away from thinking about the standalone issue of investment? You are arguing about nothing. I’m not disagreeing with investment aspects of your argument. Have you noticed that yet?

1. Because you blame the damn president - which is just too ignorant to entertain any further

2. Because China made threats that are absolutely untenable. Their plan would be cutting off their head to spite their face.

You have done nothing to dispel my belief that this administration has allowed tensions to ratchet up between the USA and China. Until you do so perhaps you may not want to call my viewpoint ignorant. Well, in reality, I’m sure you’ll do so any chance you get whether or not it is warranted.

You are assigning blame to phantom causes - and my position is lacking depth? How fucking deep does it need to be? It is really quite simple. No need to go on a nuance search - which must truly break your tree-thinking heart.

I know you don’t like looking deeper than the surface, but unfortunately, in many situations, that is where all the action is.

Willing to consider their feelings? Not really. It was a stupid threat. Stupidity does not deserve understanding what they were feeling. How hard is that for you to grasp? You have been into the “let’s understand why they felt waht they felt” mode for…well…since you started posting in the political forum. It was stupid when you started it, and it is even more stupid now.

Oh bullshit. It’s not about “feelings” in that capacity. China, as a nation, through it’s leadership, has decided that the US is acting in some way that warranted the statements that we are hearing.

You can ignore that until the cows come home, but they aren’t just issuing this statement at this time in a vacuum. It’s not random. Perhaps you don’t care why, and that’s fine.

[quote]
Yes there is - they hold debt, and they made a stupid untenable threat. Anything else is feel-good bullshit on your part. The issues reside in the bottom line - not on the emotional fringes where you seem to think they should be. [/quote]

Emotional fringes my ass. Again, the Bush administration has a habit of pushing other countries to extreme standpoints. That’s what I meant by using the term brinksmanship. You may think this is a good policy… and you are welcome to step up to the plate and argue that viewpoint.

However, once again, try not to resort to cheap characterizations so you can go about attacking them. That’s plain sad to watch.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]hedo wrote:
The Free Market allowed this to happen and the market will bring it back in balance.
[/quote]
No, a managed market allowed it to happen–not the same thing.

[hedo]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Free Market allowed this to happen and the market will bring it back in balance.

No, a managed market allowed it to happen–not the same thing.
[/quote]

I know the difference. Based on your comment why don’t you take a stab at explaining your position.

[rainjack]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
The Free Market allowed this to happen and the market will bring it back in balance.

No, a managed market allowed it to happen–not the same thing.
[/quote]

Please define managed market. We have had foreign countries invested in the United States since the Revolutionary War.

Please don’t let your libertarian fervor cloud the truth.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:

A bunch of worthless crap - which is par for the course.

[/quote]

If you think this issue is about anything besides greed, or economic power - there is no helping you.

But if it will help you pass the time - go think about all the possible things we might have done to hurt China’s feelings.

There has to be a really good Oprah-like reason the Chinese are trying to flex their new economic muscles, and I am sure you and lixy can figure it out if you sit under your tree, hold hands, and have a good old cleansing cry about it.

Now unless you want to actually debate the issues - the real issues, not the potential ones - I think we are about done here.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]hedo wrote:
I know the difference. Based on your comment why don’t you take a stab at explaining you position.
[/quote]

NAFTA. CAFTA. WTO. These are managed systems. A free market is, by definition, not managed. Managed systems give preference to certain services over other services (businesses or countries, etc) thus they benefit those given preference and punish those not given preference–and by extension the customer that could possibly benefit from free and open trade. A free market “prefers” competitive trade which does not work under management.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Please define managed market.[/quote]

Any market operating under government guidelines.

[hedo]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
I know the difference. Based on your comment why don’t you take a stab at explaining you position.

NAFTA. CAFTA. WTO. These are managed systems. A free market is, by definition, not managed. Managed systems give preference to certain services over other services (businesses or countries, etc) thus they benefit those given preference and punish those not given preference–and by extension the customer that could possibly benefit from free and open trade. A free market “prefers” competitive trade which does not work under management.[/quote]

Which of those “systems” are managing the value of foreign currencies and performing risk adjustment of the dollar?

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]hedo wrote:
Which of those “systems” are managing the value of foreign currencies and performing risk adjustment of the dollar?

[/quote]
Sorry, you are arguing two different concepts here. The US money policies are responsible for this. We create inflation by borrowing from the Chinese and now they want something to show for it. Can you blame them? They want to be “players”, too, not just cheap producers of goods. They want their citizens to be able to afford the stuff they produce for us–and quite frankly, them readjusting the value of their money (though initially bad for us) will in the long run be good for competition which benefits everyone.

Manged trade is responsible for making us reliant on the Chinese because that is who preference is given to in those deals.

Its time to wake up and tell our government not to allow it anymore. We can do business with the Chinese but it doesn’t have to be under certain terms that only benefit a few.

[rainjack]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Please define managed market.

Any market operating under government guidelines.[/quote]

That’s a very broad definition.

So you are blaming Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Ben Franklin for China investing in our country?

Government issued debt - especially debt issued by a country as solid, and stable as the US - is one of the best gurantees against an invading force entering our country.

You are on the brink of needing a tin-foil hat.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[center]Six Steps to American Financial Disaster:[/center]

1. Invade a country under false pretense with no continuity or exit strategy

2. Borrow money to pay for unending “war”

3. Create inflation by over borrowing and saturating the money supply

4. Raise interest rates to curb inflation

5. Default on ARM sub-prime home loan because of adjusted rates

6. Watch the markets crumble as foreign investors lose confidence.

[hedo]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
Which of those “systems” are managing the value of foreign currencies and performing risk adjustment of the dollar?

Sorry, you are arguing two different concepts here. The US money policies are responsible for this. We create inflation by borrowing from the Chinese and now they want something to show for it. Can you blame them? They want to be “players”, too, not just cheap producers of goods. They want their citizens to be able to afford the stuff they produce for us–and quite frankly, them readjusting the value of their money (though initially bad for us) will in the long run be good for competition which benefits everyone.

Manged trade is responsible for making us reliant on the Chinese because that is who preference is given to in those deals.

Its time to wake up and tell our government not to allow it anymore. We can do business with the Chinese but it doesn’t have to be under certain terms that only benefit a few.[/quote]

Actually what I was arguing was the point of this thread. I didn’t introduce the extraneous concepts. The political red herrings have no bearing on this issue.

The Chinese need to free float their currency in order to be “players”. It’s not free floating now ala a free market valuation. Combine that with the dual economy (capitalism for some, communist for many) and the Chinese economy can be seen as far more vulnerable the the US by any measure. Maitenance of current growth will be impossible and if you think the US credit markets are vulnerable, spend some time looking at the Chinese systems.

The origins of this dispute were started because the Chinese are depressing their currency so that exports can remain low cost. The growth in manufacturing fuels the Chinese economy. The US is pushing for a more free market currency. The Chinese are threatening to dump dollars. They won’t but merely making the threat tells you what you are dealing with.

If anything this administration has identified the problem and is taking steps to try and fix it. Simply having a policy of “not offending” the Chinese whether they are doing something wrong or not is silly. Smaller nations may have to toe that line but any G8 nation nation and should not.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]hedo wrote:
If anything this administration has identified the problem and is taking steps to try and fix it. Simply having a policy of “not offending” the Chinese whether they are doing something wrong or not is silly. Smaller nations may have to toe that line but any G8 nation nation and should not.
[/quote]

I don’t understand why free floating their currency is bad? They are making it available to more people than just the US to invest in. Is that not how the free market should operate?

And just to reiterate: if this were a free market economy we would not have government intervention in currency markets.

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If you think this issue is about anything besides greed, or economic power - there is no helping you.

But if it will help you pass the time - go think about all the possible things we might have done to hurt China’s feelings.

There has to be a really good Oprah-like reason the Chinese are trying to flex their new economic muscles, and I am sure you and lixy can figure it out if you sit under your tree, hold hands, and have a good old cleansing cry about it.

Now unless you want to actually debate the issues - the real issues, not the potential ones - I think we are about done here. [/quote]

To translate, we disagree, but you have to attempt to characterize things in a ridiculous way, as usual. Of course this has to do with economic power – however, you are seriously disinterested in why it is happening right now.

Too bad.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
To translate, we disagree, but you have to attempt to characterize things in a ridiculous way, as usual. Of course this has to do with economic power – however, you are seriously disinterested in why it is happening right now.

Too bad.[/quote]

I told you why. You want to hypothesize, and get into the Chinese’s heads. It is typical that you need to translate plain English. I say what I say - it needs no thinking tree re-wording.

Stick with the facts. That is what this is about. You want to argue thoughts, and use words like “possible”, “perhaps”, “potentially”.

I don’t play in pretend land. Facts are facts. You have presented none of any relevance. You know this. I know this.

That is the very reason I told you we were about done.

I am just a bit amused that you call it sad when people don’t want to play your game…or sit under your thinking tree.

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I told you why. You want to hypothesize, and get into the Chinese’s heads. It is typical that you need to translate plain English. I say what I say - it needs no thinking tree re-wording.

Stick with the facts. That is what this is about. You want to argue thoughts, and use words like “possible”, “perhaps”, “potentially”.

I don’t play in pretend land. Facts are facts. You have presented none of any relevance. You know this. I know this.

That is the very reason I told you we were about done.

I am just a bit amused that you call it sad when people don’t want to play your game…or sit under your thinking tree. [/quote]

The sad part is the mischaracterizations dude.

Go on judging life by the ripples you see on the surface, obviously that is no sweat off my back.

Your statements stand for people to judge just as mine do. That should be good enough.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
The sad part is the mischaracterizations dude.[/quote]

Please explain what I have mischaracterized. I’d like some real proof. No perhaps, possible, or potentially references. I have extended you the courtesy of a bulleted list of exactly what I think. You keep avoiding any real stance other than “It’s all Bush’s fault”. I am not surprised - but always disapointed.

Go on judging life by the ripples you see on the surface, obviously that is no sweat off my back.

See - the problem with your little analogy is that I am already in the water. I know what is making the ripples. Unlike you who is standing on the shore, pointing your finger and wondering real hard what could cause those dangerous ripples. Get in the fucking game, or go point your fear filled finger at another pond.

Your statements stand for people to judge just as mine do. That should be good enough.

Who the hell even cares? I call stupid bullshit when I see it. You are wearing a stupid bullshit leisure suit. DOn’t start crying because I make a point to tell everyone how badly you smell.

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Who the hell even cares? I call stupid bullshit when I see it. You are wearing a stupid bullshit leisure suit. DOn’t start crying because I make a point to tell everyone how badly you smell.[/quote]

You don’t get it do you?

We’ve both put out our reasons and explained our point of view. I think yours is stupid bullshit and you think mine is stupid bullshit.

There is no point in both of us throwing mud all day, both of us have described our viewpoints and taken our stances. We disagree.

Shall we argue the rest of the evening about who smells worse? Zzzz.

[rainjack]

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Who the hell even cares? I call stupid bullshit when I see it. You are wearing a stupid bullshit leisure suit. DOn’t start crying because I make a point to tell everyone how badly you smell.

You don’t get it do you?

We’ve both put out our reasons and explained our point of view. I think yours is stupid bullshit and you think mine is stupid bullshit.

There is no point in both of us throwing mud all day, both of us have described out viewpoints and taken our stances. We disagree.

Shall we argue the rest of the evening about who smells worse? Zzzz.[/quote]

I do get it. I ask for you to explain your position, and you duck and run.

It’s really simple - either do as I ask, or don’t. You choose don’t.

Now the question becomes: why?

I like the way you just quit by faking a sense of superiority when the fact is you just refuse to put you position down in a legible manner.

Maybe it’s not bullshit - maybe it is chicken shit. Either way - you stink.

[vroom]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I do get it. I ask for you to explain your position, and you duck and run.

It’s really simple - either do as I ask, or don’t. You choose don’t.[/quote]

I explained my viewpoint and you refused to consider it. What else is there to discuss?

I like the way you just quit by faking a sense of superiority when the fact is you just refuse to put you position down in a legible manner.

Maybe it’s not bullshit - maybe it is chicken shit. Either way - you stink.

I’m not faking a sense of superiority, nor do I feel a sense of superiority, I am however getting bored with hurling insults back and forth. Let’s pick a fight on a new thread… if it will make you happy we can continue the schoolyard style bullshit there.