China not Russia is the threat

You got super triggered by me saying Trump was bribable and then whined about liberals. You either got bullied by the big bad mean liberals or have a victim complex. I don't care, stop being a bitch.

And your brain really short circuited trying to write that sentence. Fuck off in progress, I guess.

What the bell is this “triggered” thing. That’s like the ultimate liberal bitch out. “Yeah well you’re obviously triggered”. Bitch please, I could be less triggered, I don’t even know how any intelligent person can accuse somebody of being “triggered” based on a brief back and forth posting on a message board. You need to get your head checked.
 
Imagine typing “America is a third world country” and hitting the post button. You are a fucking clown, let me guess you’re in Europe right??? I bet it’s fucking awesome lol.

I don't have to imagine, I just have to remember it.



So how many mass shootings did you guys enjoy today?
 
Yeah, I can read.


And it's outright fucking laughable that you think somehow the U.S. will come out ahead in the event of a nuclear war.


Newsflash: Russia has more nukes than you and they're not going to land "one nuke." They have over 4000 of them.


Another newsflash: The U.S. will never directly attack China or Russia. Ever. Because they both have lots of nukes and the means to deliver them. The exact same reason Russia or China will never directly attack the U.S. Everyone will die.
Ok, I really dont want to be mean. I want to just have a peaceful fun conversation..but...you really are having a shocking amount of difficulty with reading comprehension. I don't know how many different ways I can clearly state that in the event nuclear war breaks out we may not win, but we arent "losing" either IE the other country wont be the one left standing/America wont be surrendering.

Conventionally warfare: We win.
Nuclear warfare: We lose. They lose. But they will lose harder than us.

happy?
 
I think at some point "something" will happen to stop China's power growth. Make of that what you will.

Something like this? Zeihan's analysis is pretty bleak.

China’s regions have little in common and do not naturally cohere. Getting nationalist, security-minded northerners to cooperate with the business-savvy central Chinese as well as the occupied southerners is not an easy task. And that is before you take into account that the interior is a chunky, seething morass of dissatisfaction or that the primary hub of the south is Hong Kong, until recently part of the free world.

China needs a social binding agent. It needs to be a strong adhesive and applied in huge volumes. Without it China not only spins out into its constituent fragments, but large numbers of its citizens tend to gather into large groups and go on long walks together. None of this is a surprise to the Communist Party. After all, its founders took advantage of China’s many regional and socioeconomic cleavages in their rise to power in the first place. Rather than deny contemporary China’s origin story, they instead have used the opportunities presented by Bretton Woods to forge a solution.

It comes down to money. The Chinese government starkly limits what its citizens can do with their savings. Rather than allowing a wealth of investment options as exists in the capital-rich American or British system, private savings are instead funneled to state goals in a manner somewhat similar to the German system. Specifically, there are very few banks in China, with some three-quarters of all deposits held in four large state-owned institutions: the Agricultural Bank of China, the Bank of China, the Construction Bank of China, and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.

Those four banks have very clear mandates. They are to use the citizenry’s deposits to maximize bank lending to the economy as a whole. The goal of the policy is a simple one: maximum possible employment. While this is technically a lending model, it is more accurately thought of as a system of subsidization. Since Chinese citizens have so few investment options, the banks have access to their deposits at rates that are ridiculously low. Consequently, internal interest rates in China are artificially held well below global norms and are certainly far below what they would normally be in an economy at China’s level of development.

Loans are available for everything. Want to launch a new product? Take out a loan to finance the development, to pay the staff, to cover marketing expenses, to build a warehouse to store output that doesn’t sell as planned. Find yourself under the burden of too many loans? Take out another to cover the loan payments. The result is an ever-rising mountain of loans gone bad and ever less efficient firms, held together by nothing more than the system’s bottomless supply of cheap labor and cheap credit.

The distortions this system creates are ones very familiar to all of us living in the contemporary world:

• The Chinese financial system subsidizes prices for finished outputs. This drives down the price of Chinese finished goods and allows their exports to displace most global competition. Normally such price crashes would induce producers to reduce output, but in China profits and even sales are not the driving rationale for business. Employment is. And Bretton Woods, by its very design, gives the Chinese access to a bottomless global market.

• The Chinese financial system subsidizes the consumption for inputs. In effect, the Chinese system doesn’t care whether oil costs $8 a barrel or $180 a barrel. Everything is paid for with borrowed money you don’t have to pay back anyway, so demand builds upon itself. Chinese demand is the primary cause for the drastic price increases of the past fifteen years in everything from oil to copper to tin to concrete. It’s not just happening abroad, but at home as well. The Chinese property boom is ultimately caused by huge volumes of loans chasing a fixed supply of a product, in this case housing.

• When you don’t care about prices or output or debt or quality or safety or reputation, your economic growth is truly impressive. China has achieved over 9 percent economic growth annually now for thirty years, elevating it to its current status as the world’s second largest economy.

• China has expanded so much that in some sectors its demand has swallowed up all that remained of several industrial commodities in the world at large, forcing its state-owned firms to venture out and invest in projects that otherwise wouldn’t have happened—LNG in Australia, copper in Zambia, soy in Brazil. Chinese overseas investments are a who’s who of what is technically possible but economically ridiculous.

• Finally, as cheap and plentiful as Chinese capital is, it isn’t available for everyone. Because the Chinese system is ultimately managed by the Communist Party and because the leaders of localities hold so much power versus the center, there is extreme collusion between bank management and the local Communist Party leaderships. This collusion funnels capital to local state firms affiliated with friends and family of the local governing elite, often depriving smaller—and typically more efficient—firms of the loans that they need to expand. The result is a system skewed toward larger firms that, from an employment point of view, become too large to fail. Any meaningful reform of the Chinese system will not only break the links between national and local authorities, but gut the very firms that are achieving social placidity.

So how big is this problem? Pretty big. In 2007, total Chinese lending topped 3.6 trillion RMB ($600 billion). How much is that really? Well, that’s more than total lending into the U.S. economy when the U.S. subprime bubble was at its maximum inflation, and that in a year when the Chinese economy was less than one-third the size of the U.S. economy. As the 2007–9 global financial crisis bit, the Chinese government discovered that demand for goods was collapsing on a global scale, with Chinese goods being no exception. In other countries, the drop in demand for goods forced companies out of business along with the expected impact upon employment levels. Not in China. Following such a normal business cycle in China would have resulted in unemployment and social unrest (or worse).

Instead of the credit crunch that the rest of the world suffered, Chinese companies were encouraged to borrow ever larger volumes, allowing them to finance their way through the downturn. Overall lending not only increased, it tripled in just two years. Normally, such a credit explosion would generate massive inefficiencies, bubbles, and other distortions that would be damning to an economy—but such problems were already embedded in the Chinese system, so the change didn’t really register.

Nevertheless, the Chinese government isn’t actively looking for problems, and it dialed back the credit expansion… or at least it tried to. Since the banks operate just like the rest of the country—on throughput rather than profit—they needed to keep forcing money through the system. The result was a proliferation of new methods of lending, ranging from bogus insurance policies to corporate bonds. None of these programs work in China the way that they do elsewhere.

For example, in most countries, firms seeking to raise money issue corporate bonds that are purchased by interested investors. In China, the large banks issue bonds to each other and use the money raised to support their own phalanx of corporate customers. It is simply another means of force-feeding capital through the system to maximize short-term economic activity.

The various means of capital profusion had become so many and so lax that the government actually lost control of its own financial network. The government knew it had to somehow rein in credit, but it wanted to find a way of doing so that wouldn’t actually cause a recession, much less an economic crash and the unemployment that would go along with it. The government dared not risk changing the fundamental method of handing out credit, nor the large-scale absence of quality checks, nor the absence of due diligence. The “solution” was to issue a centrally imposed quota on bank lending every month. In most months, the quota was reached well before month’s end, causing the entire financial sector to seize up when the credit suddenly dried up.

This led to two outcomes. First, the central bank had to (repeatedly) pump in emergency credit the day after the quota was reached, or else face the sort of systemic financial crash that U.S. subprime caused in late 2007. Second, banks, firms, and retail investors, appalled by the idea that the government might actually deny them credit because of something as silly as a lending quota, built their own financial network to run in parallel to the existing system.

This shadow system includes everything from loan-sharking to financial products with even fewer quality controls than official bank lending (after all, they were formed expressly to bypass government authority). By the first quarter of 2013, China’s own central bank estimated that such shadow lending was exceeding all other forms of credit combined.

Just as the United States meted out access to its market to bribe its way into the world’s largest ever alliance, the Chinese used finance to bribe both its often conflicting regions and ever restive populations into quiescence and even cooperation. It is a brilliant strategy, but it has limits.

Japan followed a similar system in the 1950s through the 1980s, eventually reaching a level of overextension that brought the entire system to its knees. In the quarter century since the Japanese crash, the Japanese banking sector has retreated completely from the global system, and the Japanese economy as a whole has not grown. Such stagnation is China’s best-case-scenario future.

Unfortunately, it is also not a very likely one. The Japanese economy is largely domestically held and demand-driven, so while loose credit certainly helps, it is not the hedge against doomsday that it is in China. Additionally, Japan is over 98 percent ethnically Japanese, and over four-fifths of the population lives on the island of Honshu. China is considerably less unified regionally, ethnically, and spatially.

The United States even experimented with this system: the idea that growth and throughput were more important than profitability and a positive rate of return on capital. The result was a mess of graft, abuse, and unwise lending that created the failed company we knew as Enron, and the property bubble we now know as subprime. Both experiments created impressive growth for years. But such investments were geared to maximized throughput, not profits or efficiency. And so they collapsed. In essence, the entire Chinese system is subprime, in every economic sector.
 
What the bell is this “triggered” thing. That’s like the ultimate liberal bitch out. “Yeah well you’re obviously triggered”. Bitch please, I could be less triggered, I don’t even know how any intelligent person can accuse somebody of being “triggered” based on a brief back and forth posting on a message board. You need to get your head checked.

Triggered is what you are. If you want to agree that you're the equivalent of the ultimate liberal bitch out, be my guest. We've already determined you're a big bitch.

I don't know how someone could be so offended by me calling Trump very bribable (which is true) and then feel the need to bring up a whole bunch of their liberal baggage that didn't apply to what I wrote, but here we are. I've already explained that if you like or benefit from Trump being bribable that's great for you. If you can't comprehend that, maybe because you're in the middle of fucking off, then fuck off completely, take a rest, and then come back and read it again.
 
I don't have to imagine, I just have to remember it.



So how many mass shootings did you guys enjoy today?


Good to know your such a pice of shit that you would use some dead kids to try to make a point in an mma forum. You are trash.
 
That's why China will try to up their soft power in the region. A war mongering China is something the US would love. But a lovable China would cause so many more headaches.

This.

And as I see it happening now Chinese total domination of Asia is inevitable it is just the logical thing to happen.

Look at Europe during the Soviet Era all the countries near the USSR are either have good relations or their puppet. It took years for Poland to be against Soviet policy. And on the other hand Most countries near the USA is allied or have some sort of diplomatic relationship, Cuba is the outlier but see what happened in Cuba they stagnated.

Same thing will happen to any South East Asian Country that will refuse to fall in line with China once China gains more strength.
 
Ok, I really dont want to be mean. I want to just have a peaceful fun conversation..but...you really are having a shocking amount of difficulty with reading comprehension. I don't know how many different ways I can clearly state that in the event nuclear war breaks out we may not win, but we arent "losing" either IE the other country wont be the one left standing/America wont be surrendering.

Conventionally warfare: We win.
Nuclear warfare: We lose. They lose. But they will lose harder than us.

happy?

No, this post is even more dumb than your last one.


"We lose. They lose. But they will lose harder than us."

If everyone is all dead, how exactly are they losing 'harder' than you?


If two people shoot each other in the head at the same time...... is one more dead than the other? Do Americans have some sort of resistance to death nowadays? lmao




And conventional warfare will never happen. That's why they have nukes.
 
Triggered is what you are. If you want to agree that you're the equivalent of the ultimate liberal bitch out, be my guest. We've already determined you're a big bitch.

I don't know how someone could be so offended by me calling Trump very bribable (which is true) and then feel the need to bring up a whole bunch of their liberal baggage that didn't apply to what I wrote, but here we are. I've already explained that if you like or benefit from Trump being bribable that's great for you. If you can't comprehend that, maybe because you're in the middle of fucking off, then fuck off completely, take a rest, and then come back and read it again.


I was just calling you out on your typical liberal :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:ry, I wasn’t angry in the least.

Well trump works for Russia....nope

Well trump hates Muslims....nope

Well trump is an anti Semite....nope

Well the economy wil tank because of trump....nope

Trump is going to start world war 3...nope

Trump made America racist....nope


Well...well...well...we’ll he’s easily bribable, yeah let’s go with that one, makes me look cool on an mma forum...
 
Good to know your such a pice of shit that you would use some dead kids to try to make a point in an mma forum. You are trash.

Don't blame me for your idiotic gun fetishes. You don't want people to say anything about it then maybe you should give up jerking off over your firearms.

Act like a third world country and you'll get called a third world country.
 
Don't blame me for your idiotic gun fetishes. You don't want people to say anything about it then maybe you should give up jerking off over your firearms.

Act like a third world country and you'll get called a third world country.

Why are you speaking to me??? Don’t waste you’re breath I’m not even reading your posts as your opinions simply don’t matter to me.
 
Ok, I really dont want to be mean. I want to just have a peaceful fun conversation..but...you really are having a shocking amount of difficulty with reading comprehension. I don't know how many different ways I can clearly state that in the event nuclear war breaks out we may not win, but we arent "losing" either IE the other country wont be the one left standing/America wont be surrendering.

Conventionally warfare: We win.
Nuclear warfare: We lose. They lose. But they will lose harder than us.

happy?

One thing that is always being left out in discussions about a theoretical war between USA and China is the disparity in the Airforces.

The comparison is always about the Navy you always see headlines "China unveils new Submarrine and Carrier fleet will be able to challenge the USN within 5 years" to a lot of readers they equate this as China already having the parity against US in a total war scenario but forgets to mention there is still big gap in offensive capabilities Airforce wise.

I think the USA has a much more capable Strategic bomber fleets B-52s B-1 B-2s and there is a current program for a large supersonic stealth Bombers.

This part of the equation that will be the game changer this Bombers can be deployed from Guam and attack all the ports China including those islands in the West Philippine Sea where they installed Missiles. In short the US armed forces can inflict severe damage to them without even unleashing the US Navy.
 
No, this post is even more dumb than your last one.


"We lose. They lose. But they will lose harder than us."

If everyone is all dead, how exactly are they losing 'harder' than you?


If two people shoot each other in the head at the same time...... is one more dead than the other? Do Americans have some sort of resistance to death nowadays? lmao




And conventional warfare will never happen. That's why they have nukes.

America will be the last one standing and rise from the ashes. I'm bored now, enjoy your inferior country mate.
 
Why are you speaking to me??? Don’t waste you’re breath I’m not even reading your posts as your opinions simply don’t matter to me.

I'm speaking to you because you responded to one of my posts.

And now you're butthurt.

Feel free to fuck off whenever you like, I'm not forcing you to stay here and get triggered.
 
I was just calling you out on your typical liberal :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:ry, I wasn’t angry in the least.

Well trump works for Russia....nope

Well trump hates Muslims....nope

Well trump is an anti Semite....nope

Well the economy wil tank because of trump....nope

Trump is going to start world war 3...nope

Trump made America racist....nope


Well...well...well...we’ll he’s easily bribable, yeah let’s go with that one, makes me look cool on an mma forum...

This is what I meant when I said you have liberal baggage. Massive liberal baggage. You brought up all that shit because Trump is bribable. Which is true. He's bribable. That's a quality of his. Good if it benefits you, bad if it doesn't. And i'm cool because I said that, thanks I guess, wow i'm cool to bitchman505. I wasn't trying to be cool but I guess when i'm dealing with some weirdo with a ton of baggage expecting me to fit into his narrative this is what we get. You are a ridiculous person.
 
America will be the last one standing and rise from the ashes. I'm bored now, enjoy your inferior country mate.

Of course you're bored.

Getting owned over and over again certainly would get tedious.



Go watch Captain America a few more times and pretend that you're immune to firestorms <{outtahere}>
 
They might try something against Vietnam again.

Vietmin can't get a break, the fought, The French, the Japanese, The Americans,and fellow Vietanamese and the Chinese! And they may fight them again.


Chinese tourists spark ire in Vietnam for wearing a 9-dash line T-shert!

32584096_1890776231037984_5119218644483571712_n.jpg


http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news...m-with-shirts-depicting-nine-dash-line/story/


When the Chinese invaded the Paracel islands back in the 1974, only the South Vietnamese Navy engaged them in battle. The communists in North Vietnam partied in the streets in Hanoi like a damn holiday - complete with firecrackers and lion dancers - because they actually thought the Chinese will simply hand those islands over to them after taking it from "the enemies" in Saigon.

Fucking dumb-asses.

The Northern half choosing communism and went in league with big brother China is that nation's biggest tragedy.
 
Last edited:
When the Chinese invaded the Vietnamese islands back in the 1970s, only the South Vietnam's Navy engaged them in battle. The communists in North Vietnam celebrated in the streets because they actually thought the Chinese will hand those islands over to them.

Fucking dumb-asses.

How can anyone trust the Chinese because the Americans,and the rest of the world have been dubious in the past with their colonialism is just so disingenuous.

Usually this pro China crowds are the same people crying about American imperialism and accuse the rest of having a colonial mentality meanwhile embracing Chinese political influence to the point that economic security is in peril.

Just look at what is happening in Johor in Malaysia and in Bali, Chinese workers are the one working on the projects in Bali there are even Chinese tour guides and tour operators.
 
Something like this? Zeihan's analysis is pretty bleak.

China’s regions have little in common and do not naturally cohere. Getting nationalist, security-minded northerners to cooperate with the business-savvy central Chinese as well as the occupied southerners is not an easy task. And that is before you take into account that the interior is a chunky, seething morass of dissatisfaction or that the primary hub of the south is Hong Kong, until recently part of the free world.

China needs a social binding agent. It needs to be a strong adhesive and applied in huge volumes. Without it China not only spins out into its constituent fragments, but large numbers of its citizens tend to gather into large groups and go on long walks together. None of this is a surprise to the Communist Party. After all, its founders took advantage of China’s many regional and socioeconomic cleavages in their rise to power in the first place. Rather than deny contemporary China’s origin story, they instead have used the opportunities presented by Bretton Woods to forge a solution.

It comes down to money. The Chinese government starkly limits what its citizens can do with their savings. Rather than allowing a wealth of investment options as exists in the capital-rich American or British system, private savings are instead funneled to state goals in a manner somewhat similar to the German system. Specifically, there are very few banks in China, with some three-quarters of all deposits held in four large state-owned institutions: the Agricultural Bank of China, the Bank of China, the Construction Bank of China, and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.

Those four banks have very clear mandates. They are to use the citizenry’s deposits to maximize bank lending to the economy as a whole. The goal of the policy is a simple one: maximum possible employment. While this is technically a lending model, it is more accurately thought of as a system of subsidization. Since Chinese citizens have so few investment options, the banks have access to their deposits at rates that are ridiculously low. Consequently, internal interest rates in China are artificially held well below global norms and are certainly far below what they would normally be in an economy at China’s level of development.

Loans are available for everything. Want to launch a new product? Take out a loan to finance the development, to pay the staff, to cover marketing expenses, to build a warehouse to store output that doesn’t sell as planned. Find yourself under the burden of too many loans? Take out another to cover the loan payments. The result is an ever-rising mountain of loans gone bad and ever less efficient firms, held together by nothing more than the system’s bottomless supply of cheap labor and cheap credit.

The distortions this system creates are ones very familiar to all of us living in the contemporary world:

• The Chinese financial system subsidizes prices for finished outputs. This drives down the price of Chinese finished goods and allows their exports to displace most global competition. Normally such price crashes would induce producers to reduce output, but in China profits and even sales are not the driving rationale for business. Employment is. And Bretton Woods, by its very design, gives the Chinese access to a bottomless global market.

• The Chinese financial system subsidizes the consumption for inputs. In effect, the Chinese system doesn’t care whether oil costs $8 a barrel or $180 a barrel. Everything is paid for with borrowed money you don’t have to pay back anyway, so demand builds upon itself. Chinese demand is the primary cause for the drastic price increases of the past fifteen years in everything from oil to copper to tin to concrete. It’s not just happening abroad, but at home as well. The Chinese property boom is ultimately caused by huge volumes of loans chasing a fixed supply of a product, in this case housing.

• When you don’t care about prices or output or debt or quality or safety or reputation, your economic growth is truly impressive. China has achieved over 9 percent economic growth annually now for thirty years, elevating it to its current status as the world’s second largest economy.

• China has expanded so much that in some sectors its demand has swallowed up all that remained of several industrial commodities in the world at large, forcing its state-owned firms to venture out and invest in projects that otherwise wouldn’t have happened—LNG in Australia, copper in Zambia, soy in Brazil. Chinese overseas investments are a who’s who of what is technically possible but economically ridiculous.

• Finally, as cheap and plentiful as Chinese capital is, it isn’t available for everyone. Because the Chinese system is ultimately managed by the Communist Party and because the leaders of localities hold so much power versus the center, there is extreme collusion between bank management and the local Communist Party leaderships. This collusion funnels capital to local state firms affiliated with friends and family of the local governing elite, often depriving smaller—and typically more efficient—firms of the loans that they need to expand. The result is a system skewed toward larger firms that, from an employment point of view, become too large to fail. Any meaningful reform of the Chinese system will not only break the links between national and local authorities, but gut the very firms that are achieving social placidity.

So how big is this problem? Pretty big. In 2007, total Chinese lending topped 3.6 trillion RMB ($600 billion). How much is that really? Well, that’s more than total lending into the U.S. economy when the U.S. subprime bubble was at its maximum inflation, and that in a year when the Chinese economy was less than one-third the size of the U.S. economy. As the 2007–9 global financial crisis bit, the Chinese government discovered that demand for goods was collapsing on a global scale, with Chinese goods being no exception. In other countries, the drop in demand for goods forced companies out of business along with the expected impact upon employment levels. Not in China. Following such a normal business cycle in China would have resulted in unemployment and social unrest (or worse).

Instead of the credit crunch that the rest of the world suffered, Chinese companies were encouraged to borrow ever larger volumes, allowing them to finance their way through the downturn. Overall lending not only increased, it tripled in just two years. Normally, such a credit explosion would generate massive inefficiencies, bubbles, and other distortions that would be damning to an economy—but such problems were already embedded in the Chinese system, so the change didn’t really register.

Nevertheless, the Chinese government isn’t actively looking for problems, and it dialed back the credit expansion… or at least it tried to. Since the banks operate just like the rest of the country—on throughput rather than profit—they needed to keep forcing money through the system. The result was a proliferation of new methods of lending, ranging from bogus insurance policies to corporate bonds. None of these programs work in China the way that they do elsewhere.

For example, in most countries, firms seeking to raise money issue corporate bonds that are purchased by interested investors. In China, the large banks issue bonds to each other and use the money raised to support their own phalanx of corporate customers. It is simply another means of force-feeding capital through the system to maximize short-term economic activity.

The various means of capital profusion had become so many and so lax that the government actually lost control of its own financial network. The government knew it had to somehow rein in credit, but it wanted to find a way of doing so that wouldn’t actually cause a recession, much less an economic crash and the unemployment that would go along with it. The government dared not risk changing the fundamental method of handing out credit, nor the large-scale absence of quality checks, nor the absence of due diligence. The “solution” was to issue a centrally imposed quota on bank lending every month. In most months, the quota was reached well before month’s end, causing the entire financial sector to seize up when the credit suddenly dried up.

This led to two outcomes. First, the central bank had to (repeatedly) pump in emergency credit the day after the quota was reached, or else face the sort of systemic financial crash that U.S. subprime caused in late 2007. Second, banks, firms, and retail investors, appalled by the idea that the government might actually deny them credit because of something as silly as a lending quota, built their own financial network to run in parallel to the existing system.

This shadow system includes everything from loan-sharking to financial products with even fewer quality controls than official bank lending (after all, they were formed expressly to bypass government authority). By the first quarter of 2013, China’s own central bank estimated that such shadow lending was exceeding all other forms of credit combined.

Just as the United States meted out access to its market to bribe its way into the world’s largest ever alliance, the Chinese used finance to bribe both its often conflicting regions and ever restive populations into quiescence and even cooperation. It is a brilliant strategy, but it has limits.

Japan followed a similar system in the 1950s through the 1980s, eventually reaching a level of overextension that brought the entire system to its knees. In the quarter century since the Japanese crash, the Japanese banking sector has retreated completely from the global system, and the Japanese economy as a whole has not grown. Such stagnation is China’s best-case-scenario future.

Unfortunately, it is also not a very likely one. The Japanese economy is largely domestically held and demand-driven, so while loose credit certainly helps, it is not the hedge against doomsday that it is in China. Additionally, Japan is over 98 percent ethnically Japanese, and over four-fifths of the population lives on the island of Honshu. China is considerably less unified regionally, ethnically, and spatially.

The United States even experimented with this system: the idea that growth and throughput were more important than profitability and a positive rate of return on capital. The result was a mess of graft, abuse, and unwise lending that created the failed company we knew as Enron, and the property bubble we now know as subprime. Both experiments created impressive growth for years. But such investments were geared to maximized throughput, not profits or efficiency. And so they collapsed. In essence, the entire Chinese system is subprime, in every economic sector.


Long read but worth it.

Others should do the same.
 
How can anyone trust the Chinese because the Americans,and the rest of the world have been dubious in the past with their colonialism is just so disingenuous.

Usually this pro China crowds are the same people crying about American imperialism and accuse the rest of having a colonial mentality meanwhile embracing Chinese political influence to the point that economic security is in peril.

Just look at what is happening in Johor in Malaysia and in Bali, Chinese workers are the one working on the projects in Bali there are even Chinese tour guides and tour operators.

Here's the funny thing: the "American imperialists" have never taken an inch of dirt from Vietnam. Not a single Vietnamese town or island have ever been added to the U.S map.

I've lost counts of how much of Vietnam's territory, on both land and sea, have fallen into the hand of "Comrade China" over the years, from when the Vietnam War was still raging til now, without any possibility of getting it back.

People living in the South are pissed as hell, but Hanoi is still a very good little brother to Beijing.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,834
Messages
55,310,964
Members
174,733
Latest member
NiTrok
Back
Top