It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China now has 837.9 Bil of forex reserve

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
AMM.

I found this article quite interesting.



What impact would a price drop of US government bonds have?

The effect of a sharp sell-off of US bonds on world stock-markets, real-estate and currency trading would be powerful and could even in some circumstances trigger world crises:

Stock markets respond negatively to rising interest rates because they make holding onto stocks less attractive to investors. In extreme cases, a sudden massive decline in the price of bonds (producing a surge in interest rates) could shock stock markets enough for a crash.

Real estate is influenced by the mortgage interest rate which derives directly from long-term interest rates in the capital markets. A rally in long-term interest rates would push mortgage rates up. With most real estate markets already at the end of a rally cycle, a further boost could cause a world real estate market collapse. (High mortgage rates would hit real estate sales and be extremely painful to holders of mortgages with floating interest rates.)

Mortgage companies are themselves active bond market players. A sharp bond sell-off would force them sell bonds, so adding fuel to the fire.

Currency markets like all markets, dislike uncertainty. An acute increase in US long term interest rates may temporarily stimulate a rally in dollar value. But a substantial crash of American bonds will in the long run weaken the dollar. The effect on these markets will be higher volatility.

World imbalance: Since the US government bond is a popular and staple asset held by most central banks and corporate and private portfolios - large and small, a steep sell-off may spawn a world financial crisis.

www.debka.com...

[edit on 21-10-2005 by chinawhite]




posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
faint!!wo men zhongguo you duoshao ren mei qian du bu qi shu,mai renjia
guozai you shenme yong!
Buguo nimen meiguo ren ye shi de,ren na me shao dan xiaohao de ziyuan
you shi na me duo,renjia bu gen nimen zuo dui cai guai ne!



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
"we chinese have many peole can't go to school because of no money . but you Americans have so less people but consumed so much resourse ,so no doubt that chinese will oppose you!"

A translation for you Westerners.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
If american bonds start flooding the market it is going to cause a crisis in the american economy. That much money in one alrge sum dumped all at once is going to hurt.

Also what other country would want to collect cash reserves?


Like I said, I don't doubt or deny that China dropping all of it's US bonds would hurt the US.

What you don't seem to be able to come to grips with is the two fold economic crises that would bring to China.

If China drops all of their US bonds, they themselves will lose money. If they flood the market, they won't be able to get even returns on their investment. Never mind the fact that they would lose money because of inflation rates - they would straight up buy high and sell low. Can China really take a half trillion dollar+ hit? No, they can't.

Secondly, as I have explained before, the more China hurts US buying power, the more they hurt themselves. When your biggest buyer goes into a recession/depression, you in turn feel it. Now, multiply that over every nation in the world. The world economy is based off of the US, plain and simple. The harder the US is hit, the harder the rest of the world is hit. It's that simple. You put the US into a depression, the world economy will go into a depression, and the guys at the bottom who are the suppliers generally get hit the hardest.





Its not how cheap the labour is(because a lot more people work cheaper than chinese workers.)

Its how eficent and how fast the goods are made and delivered. china took 26 years to build up this network of suppliers manufractures and delivery. The reason the west comes to china is not because of the cheap larbour but all those points up there


This is partially true. There are many factors that go into why the west buys from China including the artificially low Yuan. That alone deserves it's own thread, and I don't really have the time to get into the specifics of it, but that is going to cause China problems as well.


Other countries that could take chinas place doesn't have the infrastructure nor the resources to build this kind of thing.




You would be surprised by how many resources would be available when 20% of the world economy decides to do buisness with you. No doubt it would take time for things to be put in place, but once it is, China has no leverage. How would they prevent this from happening?


China is a large country and was able to organize the funds and organisation to create the opportunities for these western companies.


Actually, Nixon had more to do with the opertunities for the west in China then any one else.




And how can you be to certain of that?

These countries trade with america because of what the americans buy, but china is their largest trade market. No country in the world would give that up.


Yes, they would, because they can replace China with another market. That's the point. China is expendable, as there are many nations in the world that can provide what China provides.

No one can replace 20% of the world economy.


Also australia will not give up their trade. Outlined in a speech by our forigen minister.




Sorry, but if you really believe that Australia wouldn't take the first chance at crippling thier biggest threat to national security, you need to reevaluate your positions.


Germany will Not.


I'd put them at 50/50.

Taiwan- Will not. taiwans economy relies on china to much.





South Korea- They already want you out of their country.


Yeah, that is why they beg us to stay every time we try to redeploy troops.



How big is american leverage in the following countries i just mentioned above.? From what i know it isn't very big.


You mean besides having military bases in every single one of them?




Your just thinking the face value of that figure.

How much jobs are lost with 40bilion dollars of american exports. How many compaines are completly bankrupt after america doesn't trade with china.


Lots of jobs. Not close to the number China would lose.

Some. Like I said, this would be planned well in advance, and most big corporations would know about the shift well in advance.



The Vast majority of export compaines in china are western owned. Chinese brands mainly sell in the chinese market.


Like I said, this shift would be a gradual thing, and most companies would simply switch to the next place for cheap labor. You act as if no company is able to change customers.


Not much chinese compaines will lose to much money after america has massive tariffs but mainly western.


How many jobs will China lose? You pointed that out about America losing 40 billion worth of trade. Imagine China losing it's largest customer.



Anyhow what american government can pull off something like that.? knowing the amount of jobs america will lose


I believe the part you are not taking into consideration is that this would not be an over night occurance. It would be gradual. Yes, jobs would be lost. Yes, it would hurt the US economy - in the short run. Those same jobs will be recreated when all of that money China was making off of the US goes else where. Suddenly, it will be India (or Brazil, Argentina, etc) that has all of that trade with the US, and they will become a bigger trade partner with the US.




You mean india.?


Try:
Mongolia
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Afghanistan
South Korea
Japan

Just to name a few...

Then there is always the well substantiated rumor of US bases opening in Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and India in the near future.


A couple of months before america signed that thing with india. china also signed something with india. Do you think the indians are stupid?


"That thing?"

"Something?"

No, I don't think they are stupid. That is why it is clear that they are building strategic relations with the US. It is also why they would take all of that US trade away from China the second they had the chance.


They play both sides.


Of course they do.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Also i mentioned this before,

India is more a threat to america than china is. Indian workers go for the white collar jobs which employs the majority of americans. All the americans are doing now is passing laws protecting industries which died out long ago.

America is just building up another enemy. The indians wont just be american allies like the british or japan but want a equal share.


I dissagree. India is not anywhere close the threat that China is - never mind the fact that they are on infinitely better terms with the US then China is.



America cant stop all her future enemies, because the future world is not going to be based on one dominating power not even two.

Its going to be a multi-polar world. Or something like the the western powers before WW1.


Well, certainly I do not believe that the US can hold it's position for ever. However, I do believe that the US can hold it's current position for at least another centur or maybe even improve it - if we play our cards right.



The american government cant pass lsws which will harm american jobs.


You don't follow US domestic politics much, do ya?




and they dont have the leverage anymore to dictate what is going on.


20% of the worlds total economy and the most powerful military the world has ever known would indicate they can and will.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
"we chinese have many peole can't go to school because of no money . but you Americans have so less people but consumed so much resourse ,so no doubt that chinese will oppose you!"

A translation for you Westerners.


Thanks for the translation.


I would reply that Chinas problems with education are not Americas to deal with. Also, China may oppose the US when it comes to resources, but they can do little to stop us.



posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Why does everything that comes up abot China and the U.S. turn negative?

China and the U.S.A. will never go to war. We do not have military units in the Pacific because of China, but because of North Korea. If we truley felt threatened by the Chinese you would see American installations in Taiwan. China is not a dictatorship, there is not some mad man waiting to press the big red button. It takes the approval of several people to make drastic policy changes. For you armchair Patton's out there, how is it in China's best interest to "invade & counquer" when it still needs to innovate to provide better services / standards of living to own it's citizens? Something we American's could do better at as well.

There needs to be another Super Power on the block, the U.S. cannot finance it alone, and there is more to being a Super Power than having a large Army and enjoying the best in goods, but helping other nations cope.

Chinawhite made a good point that as the older generation comes to pass, the younger, higher educated people will rise to power. As this comes into play "cheap goods" from China will be pretty much a thing of the past. These people will want higher wages and what not, and they should have them.

The U.S.S.R. fell because of it's isolationist nature just as China was stunted in the past due to that same reason. No country can prosper on it's own. China is opening up, thus it's people and it's economy are improving. As it continues to develope ties to the Global community, it's people will be exposed to outside influences. Democracy will come; I am sure it's leader are well aware of this. Name one coutry that has globalized that is not democratic in one form or another?

The company I work for is owned by two brother's who's parent's immigrated from China. The are very deeply rooted in their culture, and it is all about the bottom dollar. Yet, I get paid holidays and medical / dental. In fact, on Veterans Day (an American Holiday) they chartered a 42 foot boat and took us all deep sea fishing and paid us a full days wages for it.

Yea, big bad Chinamen huh?


Both sides are skeptical, thankfully our children won't have such worries.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
If China drops all of their US bonds, they themselves will lose money. If they flood the market, they won't be able to get even returns on their investment.


If china makes a one trillion dollar dump of US bonds at one time. How will the price of bonds dramaticly decrease? I understand what you are talking about but in one go it could be managed



Secondly, as I have explained before, the more China hurts US buying power, the more they hurt themselves. When your biggest buyer goes into a recession/depression, you in turn feel it.


I thought we were talking about the end of the world scenario?. A dump in production and tradin on this scale would be a lot more devastating than the world market crash in 29.

I predict in china in case of a world economic crisis will experience a 20-30% umemployment rate. This in turn will cause riot and a possible overthrow of the chinese government with a more isolationist government.





This is partially true. There are many factors that go into why the west buys from China including the artificially low Yuan. That alone deserves it's own thread, and I don't really have the time to get into the specifics of it, but that is going to cause China problems as well.


While we dont want to repeat the japanese mistake in the plaza accord do we. America saw a challenge from japan and started barking.

Look at the results 20years later. the japanese economy has slowed and was in recession a couple of years back



You would be surprised by how many resources would be available when 20% of the world economy decides to do buisness with you. No doubt it would take time for things to be put in place, but once it is, China has no leverage. How would they prevent this from happening?


And that 20% will be broken up into many small pieces.

There is no country in the whole with the popualtion combined with the resources to forfill world demand. But making small investments everywhere is no going to change little countries to chinas level of organisation and infrustruture



Actually, Nixon had more to do with the opertunities for the west in China then any one else.


It was the americans that were blocking western funds into china. Nixon merely opened the gate




Yes, they would, because they can replace China with another market. That's the point. China is expendable, as there are many nations in the world that can provide what China provides.


Replacing what china buys not what china sells



No one can replace 20% of the world economy.


China imports 500billion + while america imports 1.4trilloin+.

That is a big difference. But chian is over 1/3 of the american buying power.



Sorry, but if you really believe that Australia wouldn't take the first chance at crippling thier biggest threat to national security, you need to reevaluate your positions.


biggest threat?

Excuse me, when did america decide who australias biggest threat was





Yeah, that is why they beg us to stay every time we try to redeploy troops.


I forgot to mention that south korea and china are each others biggest trade partners



You mean besides having military bases in every single one of them?


I never knew you had bases in australia taiwan or HK?

And your planning to overthrow their governments with a little american garrison?.



Lots of jobs. Not close to the number China would lose.
Some. Like I said, this would be planned well in advance, and most big corporations would know about the shift well in advance.


The shift? they might know but what will they do? force countries to buy american?




How many jobs will China lose? You pointed that out about America losing 40 billion worth of trade. Imagine China losing it's largest customer.


heaps and heaps of jobs.

You keep on trying to compare figures, but that is a american thing not a chinese thing




Try:
Mongolia
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan


We will see in the coming years which sides these countries will be on..

With money nothing is concrete




Then there is always the well substantiated rumor of US bases opening in Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and India in the near future.


And there are rumours that china will have bases in Burma, indonesia and vietnam(recently leased the navl base)



No, I don't think they are stupid. That is why it is clear that they are building strategic relations with the US. It is also why they would take all of that US trade away from China the second they had the chance.


You should talk to some indians members to see if the agree with the american view.




I dissagree. India is not anywhere close the threat that China is - never mind the fact that they are on infinitely better terms with the US then China is.


really........the indian threat to america.

The question we must ask ourselves is if they see china or the US as a bigger enemy. You might think its apparant that america will win but its not the case.

You invest in your long term interest and not your short term interest.

With all the talk about growing Indian-American relations it has become assumed by many that an alliance is both natural and inevitable. But this would not be an educated assumption.

India is committed to becoming the dominant naval power in the Indian Ocean. The US considers maintaining control of the waterways of the oil rich Persian gulf and the Indian Ocean to be one of their highest strategic goals.

While the Indian navy is still no match for the American Indian naval presence, this will change in time. Sometime before the Indian navy rivals the US presence, the pentagon will identify India as a threat to American interests.

An intense naval arms race in the Indian Ocean is unavoidable in the 2025-2050 timeframe. That is when Indian fighter and submarine technology will be a threat to US fleets and airbases. The US will overstretch itself trying to control the world's biggest oil artery from the perceived 'Indian threat' while also trying to safeguard Taiwan from the 'China Threat'.

If the US, aplomb with a self-view of omnipotence, will not recognize that it is unable to do both then this will be the end of America's reign as a superpower decades ahead of its time. By 2050, American simply can't afford a naval arms race with both India and China. The resulting economic implosion will parallel the demise of the Soviet Union.

If the US, awakened by a dose of realpolitik, decided it must make a choice then the question is this: control the oil or control Taiwan? Depending at what point America comes to this realization, the answer will favor one over the other.

For instance, if America had to choose between oil and Taiwan today the answer is simple: GoodBye Taiwan. This will remain America's preference until at least 2035. After that, the Oil economy will begin to be phased out in favor of ITER fusion reactor techonology or the cleaner alternative: the newly tapped energy resources of the moon. This will decrease the value of Gulf oil, and thereafter, America may consider Taiwan to be more important in the policy of containing China.

However the decision is complicated by two additional factors: 1) American defense analysts may correctly judge that by 2050 Taiwan will be impossible for the US to defend EVEN IF they abandoned the indian ocean arms race and focussed on China. By that year, China will have more money to spend on a military budget. Not to mention that Taiwan is in China's backyard and the US has other military obligations around the world.

Also, 2) Analysis of terran energy studies continue to converge on the prediction that all oil resources will be depleted by 2090. The premium on oil in 2050 for strategic military reserves will initiate a world-wide run on the market, sending prices through the roof. Both of these factors favor a naval arms race with India -at least until 2090. After that, India can have the whole ocean for all the US cares.

The big issue regarding oil will be the the single biggest transformation for all the World's militaries in the twentyfirst century. Either every military vehicle must convert to a new power source, abandoning the combustion engine, or oil will need to processed. Trouble is, Jet fighters don't work too well on batteries, solar cells, or fuel cells. Their engines demand greater performance. In addition to Jet fuel, rocket proppellant and most ammunitions are also derived from oil. Fuel-cell powered ICBM's just don't work. Even though the oil demand will be lessened slightly as some rockets get replaced with laser technology, chemical rockets will remain a vital component in the world militaries. For example, lasers can't deliver a nuclear warhead.

Currently, the only means of producing oil is the through the aeons old process of pressurizing billions of years of photosynthesized produced organic material buried within the earth. To create oil from scratch, enormous farms will have to be devoted to creating the organic materials needed for refining into oil. An expensive prospect for even a small amount of oil. As a result, militaries will need to hoard their oil as a precious commodity. Better to buy up oil now, and save alot of money in the future.

Furthermore, as Indian ballistic missile technology improves, America will expand missile defence plans to include containing the Indian threat. This will inevitably lead to posting advance warning stations in Diego Garcia, Australia's Christmas Islands, as well as leasing bases in Pakistan and Bengladesh. Of all of these, Pakistan is closest to Indian missile bases and thus Pakistan is most valuable for targeting and detroying Indian ICBM's in their vulnerable boost phase. This emphasizes Pakistan's importance to America and is likely to anatagonize India.

The US already has a similar agreement with Japan regarding their inchoate US missile defense system against China. In return for providing these early warning stations, this system, as currently promised, will also protect Japan from Chinese and North Korean missiles. Of course it is still in development, and the emphasis for now is on North Korea not China.

Leasing similar bases in Pakistan will provide Pakistan with billions of dollars in revenue and may very will include extending the missile defence umbrella over Pakistan. This will negate alot of India's strategic influence in the region, most pointedly their nuclear arsenal. This is also likely to antagonize India.

In conclusion, it is India's future development in naval power and ICBM's that will complicate Indo-American relations. And it should be pointed out that India seems committed to both. To pursue either one, in a world which America seeks to 'secure' for itself will inevitably lead to conflict.

(A post by a chinese forum poster which i was agruing for america)




Well, certainly I do not believe that the US can hold it's position for ever. However, I do believe that the US can hold it's current position for at least another centur or maybe even improve it - if we play our cards right.


I completely disagree with this one.

America might be the top dog now but you are not taking inot account the rising powers all over the world.

Brazil
India
China
Iran.

All these will trie american resources down





20% of the worlds total economy


How much of that is concentrated in the service sector



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Go to "My ATS" and find your subscribed threads.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 19-11-2005 by The Middle Kingdom]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Opus
Ungrateful Selfish China seems for forget if it wasn’t for the West, Ungrateful Selfish China would still be a 3rd world country. Ungrateful selfish Chinas seems to forget as well that in the last century the greater majority of medicines which healed its people have come from the west (polio). Ungrateful selfish China has benefited greatly from its former colonials by receiving technologies like electricity, the train ext...
Even to this day Ungrateful Selfish China continues to benefit from western generosity, receiving aid and food to feed it teeming masses of poor. I ask how Ungrateful Selfish China repays this kindness. By spying and conspiring to destroy the western economies.

Oh the Three Rivers Dam what a great achievement for People’s Republic, oh wait, the engineering companies building this dam are from the west.


Yes indeed the Ungrateful Selfish dragon will one day devour the world. By this time the ecology of the planet will be destroyed. The ungrateful selfish dragon can than devour it self.

[edit on C:Tueocu10e10 by Opus]

[edit on C:Tueocu10e10 by Opus]


I laugh again and again, we invented firepowder but not like the ungreatful selfish westerns who used it to grab treasures and slaves from all over the word to make themself rich and technollogy advanced from then, when british government sent people to do bussiness with china under manchunian's rule then even didn't have any thing to impress the emproer expect big guns... when china was stoped walking forward by civial war, invasion of westerners and all other suffers where were you!?

stop these ungraetful, selfish words people. it's far away from the main content of the post



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
If china makes a one trillion dollar dump of US bonds at one time. How will the price of bonds dramaticly decrease? I understand what you are talking about but in one go it could be managed


That is the WORST thing China could do if it wishes to get any thing close to what it paid for it's investment.

It's really not a question, it's supply and demand. If you "dump" a trillion dollars worth of anything on a market, the sale value will go down. It's basic supply and demand. There will not be 1 trillion dollars to buy up all of the bonds. Thus in order to sell them you need to sell them for less. When China does this, they will lose money.



While we dont want to repeat the japanese mistake in the plaza accord do we. America saw a challenge from japan and started barking.

Look at the results 20years later. the japanese economy has slowed and was in recession a couple of years back


Actually, there are more parallels to Japan then you may think. I would point out the number of bad loans as one such example.



And that 20% will be broken up into many small pieces.


No. More likely the US would choose one single other nation it deems as a friend rather then an enemy. Again, I would point to India as one such nation with a very large population that the US would rather give it's business to in the long run.


There is no country in the whole with the popualtion combined with the resources to forfill world demand. But making small investments everywhere is no going to change little countries to chinas level of organisation and infrustruture


Again, I dissagree. India, Brazil, Argentina, and a small group of African nations all could replace China.



It was the americans that were blocking western funds into china. Nixon merely opened the gate


And thus was the main reason they were there





Replacing what china buys not what china sells


Like I said, if another nation were given our business, they would also have a huge incrrease in buying power.



China imports 500billion + while america imports 1.4trilloin+.

That is a big difference. But chian is over 1/3 of the american buying power.


Yes, but most of that buying power is based on the west buying it's cheap goods. If the west were to do business with another nation, that other nation would take a huge part of Chinas buying power.



biggest threat?

Excuse me, when did america decide who australias biggest threat was


We don't. They do


But it is plain to see that China is Australias biggest threat (At least as far as nation states go).





I forgot to mention that south korea and china are each others biggest trade partners


And yet South Korea depends on the US to protect them from NK. They are reliant on the US for survival. They are at our mercy.



I never knew you had bases in australia taiwan or HK?


I didn't mention them. However, the US does have a large military force in Australia.


And your planning to overthrow their governments with a little american garrison?.


Of course not. However, it is indicative of the level of political sway the US possesses in those nations.



The shift? they might know but what will they do? force countries to buy american?


The problem isn't Americas, it is Chinas. What is China going to do - force the world to buy from China?




heaps and heaps of jobs.

You keep on trying to compare figures, but that is a american thing not a chinese thing


So now it is only America where losing jobs is important?





We will see in the coming years which sides these countries will be on..


No, they have already made their choice. They have ALL sided with the US.


With money nothing is concrete


And how exactly does China have more money then the US?





You should talk to some indians members to see if the agree with the american view.


I have. They all seem to think the US is an infinitely better ally then China.




really........the indian threat to america.

The question we must ask ourselves is if they see china or the US as a bigger enemy.


It is clearly China, and is pretty much agreed on by everyone.


You might think its apparant that america will win but its not the case.


I think it is clear that the US is in the drivers seat. It is theirs to lose, not Chinas to win.


You invest in your long term interest and not your short term interest.


Hence why I think you may see the US shift trade elsewhere from China.


With all the talk about growing Indian-American relations it has become assumed by many that an alliance is both natural and inevitable. But this would not be an educated assumption.


Current events contridict your statement.


India is committed to becoming the dominant naval power in the Indian Ocean. The US considers maintaining control of the waterways of the oil rich Persian gulf and the Indian Ocean to be one of their highest strategic goals.


These are not contridictory things. The UK was always among the worlds great naval powers, and yet has been the greatest ally of the US.


While the Indian navy is still no match for the American Indian naval presence, this will change in time. Sometime before the Indian navy rivals the US presence, the pentagon will identify India as a threat to American interests.


Again, this is not definitively the case.


An intense naval arms race in the Indian Ocean is unavoidable in the 2025-2050 timeframe. That is when Indian fighter and submarine technology will be a threat to US fleets and airbases. The US will overstretch itself trying to control the world's biggest oil artery from the perceived 'Indian threat' while also trying to safeguard Taiwan from the 'China Threat'.

If the US, aplomb with a self-view of omnipotence, will not recognize that it is unable to do both then this will be the end of America's reign as a superpower decades ahead of its time. By 2050, American simply can't afford a naval arms race with both India and China. The resulting economic implosion will parallel the demise of the Soviet Union.


Well, that is your opinion. I would argue that niether China nor India will be able to afford an arms race with the US - a nation with several times the economic size and a multi-trillion dollar R&D infrastructure lead.


If the US, awakened by a dose of realpolitik, decided it must make a choice then the question is this: control the oil or control Taiwan? Depending at what point America comes to this realization, the answer will favor one over the other.


Taiwan can be defended without a single soldier... Simply agree to respond to an invasion with nuclear retaliation would negate the need for any actual military presence.


For instance, if America had to choose between oil and Taiwan today the answer is simple: GoodBye Taiwan.


Except that they do not, and in all likely hood will not, need to make that choice.


This will remain America's preference until at least 2035. After that, the Oil economy will begin to be phased out in favor of ITER fusion reactor techonology or the cleaner alternative: the newly tapped energy resources of the moon.


There is no way that any energy source on the moon will be economically viable by 2035. Not a chance in hell.



However the decision is complicated by two additional factors: 1) American defense analysts may correctly judge that by 2050 Taiwan will be impossible for the US to defend EVEN IF they abandoned the indian ocean arms race and focussed on China.


Like I said, not one soldier is needed to defend Taiwan from China. Simply making them a strategic ally will prevent any action by China, unless of course they wish a nuclear war.


By that year, China will have more money to spend on a military budget.


That is a hell of an assumption. It is just - if not MORE - likely that China will be driven into an economic correction in the next decade and will there for have less to spend.


Not to mention that Taiwan is in China's backyard and the US has other military obligations around the world.


In case you haven't noticed, the US military machine isn't really effected by distances.


Also, 2) Analysis of terran energy studies continue to converge on the prediction that all oil resources will be depleted by 2090. The premium on oil in 2050 for strategic military reserves will initiate a world-wide run on the market, sending prices through the roof. Both of these factors favor a naval arms race with India -at least until 2090. After that, India can have the whole ocean for all the US cares.

The big issue regarding oil will be the the single biggest transformation for all the World's militaries in the twentyfirst century. Either every military vehicle must convert to a new power source, abandoning the combustion engine, or oil will need to processed.


Well, this is a completely different topic then US bonds, now isn't it


I don't have time to reply to the rest of this now. I will do so in the next few days.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Hi guys,

I dont know much about trading between nations and stuff, but I was wondering if China and America went against each other, could China win in terms of economy?

As I gathered from your posts, Approx 90% of China is educated. If America pulls out their stuff from China and uses Africa, Brazil etc then China can make their own products and sell to the world. That way both the countries would be competing between their products.

Also, about India, it is not going to be a threat to America anytime soon. India has a long way to go. But they are also not America's pets. India tested their nuclear weapons with out informing America about it. I remember America was really pissed at India for not informing them.
As well, America used to support Pakistan until a while ago. Although India would not go against America, they are not going to help them either.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kshatreya_putrudu
As I gathered from your posts, Approx 90% of China is educated. If America pulls out their stuff from China and uses Africa, Brazil etc then China can make their own products and sell to the world. That way both the countries would be competing between their products.


Again, the problem becomes who is going to buy their products.

The US alone, as I have mentioned several times, is Chinas greatest export partner, and also represents a staggering 20% of the worlds total economy. Simply put, losing the US alone would be enough to sink Chinas economy. On top of that, of their top 10 export partners, the majority of them are major strategic allies with the US.

That complicates things further for China, as they would not only be losing their #1 buyer, but most of the top 10 as well.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
American Mad Man, I shall repeat K4rupts question, what are you willing to trade millions of american lives for?

The difference between the UK and India is that UK relied upon America in WWII, India does not have the same ethical delima, India can pursue a national policy that can conflict with the US because they weren't "saved" in any way the Brittish were.

And finally China's export ecnomy is the acculimation of decades of quality control and infastructure development, India does not have that, no other nation can immediatly become America MFN in terms of exports and investment, because quite frankly no other nation has both the population and a stable economy for it to be viable.

Africa is full of poor 3rd world nations rith with epidemics and political instabilities that makes it essentially impossible for the same level of investment of competitiveness.

Your buisnesses CHOSE China because we're cheaper to invest in for a far higher yield no other nation can compete with that, your companies as well are too globalized for any similar shift in policy, they'll cry fowl and block any such move through their special interest groups in Congress, essentially your corporations will simply ignore any kind of tarif on American goods.

Next, China was opened up by Nixon/Kissinger because Kissenger/Nixon believed that the greatest threat to world peace is keeping a sixth of humanity isolated and out of communication with the global community, Nixon went to China and we in turn opened up to trade and improved relations and have been doing our best since then to develope our economy, to improve the lives of our citizens and to improve relations with our neighbours.

You threaten nuclear war if you don't get your way, MAD insures we would respond in kind and even if we didn't out number you in nukes millions of your people will enevitably die.

Suddenly stoping trade with China would collapse your economy, and it would be comparable to building a dam to stop a flood but you build the dam with mud bricks.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
American Mad Man, I shall repeat K4rupts question, what are you willing to trade millions of american lives for?


I don't know...

When did I mention anything that would result in this? I'm talking geo-politics economics, not war.


The difference between the UK and India is that UK relied upon America in WWII, India does not have the same ethical delima, India can pursue a national policy that can conflict with the US because they weren't "saved" in any way the Brittish were.


Never the less, India will most likely end up an ally of the US. Current events support that assertion.


And finally China's export ecnomy is the acculimation of decades of quality control



Sorry, that was a goof laugh



and infastructure development, India does not have that, no other nation can immediatly become America MFN in terms of exports and investment, because quite frankly no other nation has both the population and a stable economy for it to be viable.


And that is the problem with your argument. You have to qualify everything with "immediatly" - this isn't something that needs to be done immediatly, it is something that could be done over 15+ years. It is a viable option, and I will bet anything it will be taken.



Your buisnesses CHOSE China because we're cheaper to invest in for a far higher yield no other nation can compete with that, your companies as well are too globalized for any similar shift in policy, they'll cry fowl and block any such move through their special interest groups in Congress, essentially your corporations will simply ignore any kind of tarif on American goods.


Of course they will cry foul and try to use political sway, but it won't matter. You can't ignore a tariff, and once it is in, it's in. There are other places where they can make just as much money.



You threaten nuclear war if you don't get your way


Excuse me? When did I or the US say that? You just made that up. It's funny - the only nation threatening nuclear attacks is CHINA





Suddenly stoping trade with China would collapse your economy, and it would be comparable to building a dam to stop a flood but you build the dam with mud bricks.


Again, this is not something that would be donr suddenly, it would be a shift over 2 decades. Is that so hard to understand?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I really wonder who's side India would take, China or America. India does not have much weaponary, but It has a lot of man power.

If India has to chose between China or US, the clear choice is the US.
However if Russia gets involved, then India might have to take russia's side.
In all of the wars with Pakistan, America supplied Pakistan and even threatned to cut food imports into India if the war does not stop. The Indian prime minister had to ask people to co-operate with the shortage of food.

Whereas Russia supported India, and I know that during the cold war India and Russia were buddies. So If Russia gets involved India might just go with Russia.

Also I was wondering about China, would China be able to support its own economy with out exports to America?



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Ahem.. India has one of the largest militaries in the world..
Definitely in the top 5.
And in terms of skill/prowess/power projection its as good as (if not better) than
china in conventional terms.
And by god, we will turn our population into an advantage.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Ok one or 2 of our Generals have threatened the US with nuclear war, but didn't MacArthur say same thing to China?

Next I am DEAD sure you mentioned utilizing nuclear weapons as a deterrent but I can't find it in your posts, I assume you edited it out but alas we can never be sure now.

So now you change your view that it will be done within 20 years? Last time I checked global trade was increasing between China and the USA and in 20 years we won't be dependent on the USA on exports anyways, we'ld made a conversion to a more service based economy probably.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
Ok one or 2 of our Generals have threatened the US with nuclear war, but didn't MacArthur say same thing to China?


Your generals say that today, in a time of peace towards your largest export partner.

We thought about using nukes in the Korean war when you went against UN mandates and tried to over run South Korea 50 years ago.

BIG DIFFERENCE!


Next I am DEAD sure you mentioned utilizing nuclear weapons as a deterrent but I can't find it in your posts, I assume you edited it out but alas we can never be sure now.


I said that if Taiwan became a strategic ally with the US, then China would not invade because it knows the US would respond with nukes. Never once has the US said it will use nukes on China, and never did I say that the US should publically express such a dterent. Once a nation is a strategic ally of the US, it is a known fact that it is under the US umbrella of nuclear protection.

Also, I edited nothing. When you edit a post, it says that it is edited. The only time I have edited my posts was to fix spelling (I am a terrible speller), grammer, or quotes. I do not change what I have said.


So now you change your view that it will be done within 20 years?


I never changed it, it is what I have been saying all along. The US could shift it's trade between 10-20 years to a new nation.


we won't be dependent on the USA on exports anyways, we'ld made a conversion to a more service based economy probably.


That is a hell of an assumption with no facts to support it.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
That first statement by the middle kingdom was kind of disturbing. Kinda made me picture doctor evil saying this, then it gave me a good chuckle.
But anyhow, good for them, more money to feed their people with, and invest in human development, strengthen infrastructure. A strong trading partner with us here in the States. But then I think back to statements like "This is only the first step, nothing shall stop the awakening of the Dragon!", and it makes me wonder, what are the rest of the steps. Anyone care to enlighten me?

MacArthur wanted to use nukes in the Korean theatre. After that statement, he was relieved of command.

[edit on 11/21/2005 by ludaChris]

[edit on 11/21/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
To place Taiwan under the nuclear umbrella would require its recognition as a sovereign nation, something that America agreed never to do for as long as they wish to trade with us.

Next, utilizing nukes if we ever attempted to reclaim Taiwan forcefully would lead to the deaths of millions of American lives regardless.

Finally, if America does it GRADUALLY over 2 decades then we'll have ample warning and switch to other nations to trade with over and equally gradual time frame thus neutering the effect. After all our trade with Japan and the EU and other Asian countries is growing at a veeeerrrrrry fast rate.

Next, just as I may have no facts to back up an conversion to a more service based economy, you have equally little or no facts to back up your case. Bush has just visited China and agreed to various agreements to BOOST economic trade and improve bilateral relations.

I'm using a different computer ATM and cannot tell if you've edited your posts or not. As for the post I was looking for it was the Taiwan one and I couldn't find it.

Those 2 Generals have no chance in hell of ever getting active commands again as far as we are concerned, but remeber they spoke out of their private opinions not be considered as being part of our foreign policy.

[edit on 21-11-2005 by The Middle Kingdom]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join