Originally posted by StellarX
I am well aware and the articles i posted mentions this fact. I am not the one trying to obscure reality. You claimed that China did not have coal reserves enough to support it's economy wich i showed to be a patently false claim. Once again avoiding the issue might normally work for you but i can assure you it will not in this case.

Read again, oh starry one...

I said it's coal-mining sector was so inherently dangerous that it would be unable to guarantee supply. I said nothing about reserves.

You showed that its exports of coal would not face interruptions as these come from largely safe and monitored mines. Okay, my inference was wrong. You also showed that thousands of mines have been forced to close due to safety inspections.

So, if these thousands of mines are not supplying China's export market, they must be supplying its domestic market.

It doesn't exactly take a genius to see that the closure of thousands of coal mines is going to put a dent in the supply of coal.

Now all you have to do is find out how many coal-fired power stations China has. How much of China's generating power they make up and where they get their supply from. Then you need to factor in how much of that coal is not for power-generation, but for home-heating, China's winters can be pretty nasty.

Either way, you've got a problem.

And you're still hiding your inability to read and comprehend behind words such as "obscure" and "reality".

Any other simple misinterpretations you'd like to make?

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
John Meynard Keynes, father of Keynsian Economic Theory (would you credit it!) and the prime mover behind the World Bank.

No need to credit it since i did not bring up the theory. I suggest you get some background before attacking China over it's economic policy wich is enriching the country at tremendous pace. He was for a Central bank but not for anything like the one we have now. His Central bank might have very well been a force for positive change if managed the way he intended.

The only man who theorised a way out of the Great Depression which a) didn't involve a war and b0 was proven to work.

Even i can think of ways to get out of a depression without getting into a war of conquest. If you can not i can see why you are attacking me so.

The irony being he was British and ignored in Britain while FDR put his theories into practice in the US and in theprocess the US was the only nation to actually climb fully out of depression before the outbreak of WW2.

The British did not have to ignore the reforms as they did not suffer anywhere near the economic decline of North American or Europe. The British economy was stagnant since 1929 anyways and new deal type government control over currency and loans would obviously destroy the rule of the central bankers over Britain. It was thus not ignored as such and instead not implemented, as a policy decision, making you wrong again.

The new deal pretty much consisted of massive government spending to put money, and thus buying power, into the economy making it possible for people to get loans start producing and thus power economic growth. It's basically state spending and the creation of buying power ( Wich is exactly what drives china's growth) in the economy that enabled America to do what it did. Since America was by the time allready in the clutches of the FED it was obviously something they wanted to happen at that stage. These theories FDR was allowed to put into action was no invention of Keynes, as you seem to think, so your claim is patently false.

In 1934 Sweden become the first counry to fully recover from the depression so your yet again simply wrong

The World Bank and IMF have also moved about as far away from his ideals as it is possible to go.

"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens...Lenin was certainly right. "
John Maynard Keynes

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
John Maynard Keynes

None of which has anything to do with the point I made.

It has everything to do with the points you made. You seek to deny that the Chinese are following a effective model wich is working very well for them. I am trying to show that it is much of the West that has been corrupted and is no longer served by their central banks in the common good of their various nations.

Stellar

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Let's do this in nice, bite-sized parcels...

Well if you must....

Credit is given where credit is due. Try reading the original post.

If you gave credit where it was due i would not be here showing up your false claims.
I did read it the first time and there is no confusion in my statements.

I said that if (or when) China has an economic crisis it will make the '97 Asian financial meltdown look small.

But why on earth make such a claim? Can you not see how biased you must be to make such a pointless statement based on patently false claims ( on their natural resources) and misunderstanding of what drives their growth?

I didn't say they were involved the '97 crisis. I never denied bringing up the issue, I told you to list the Asian Tigers.

Well they were in the region so they were involved. The critical difference is it did not affect them much comparably.... Why would i want to list the so called Asian tiger economies when their policies, politics and economic situations are so different? There is nothing to compare.

The Asian Tigers (who suffered) are small nations with hothouse economies.

So called because they are trying to undercut each other in their hopelessly struggle to keep or gain market share in western economies. The west loves these sweat shop economies but they are about as unstable as economies get and only worth talking about in the context of Western influence in south eas Asia

That is economies that were forcing ahead of their abilities and were not diversified enough to withstand the crisis. ie Thailand, Malaysia etc, the other nations of SEAsia suffered because their economies were in such poor shape after decades of corruption and mismanagement (ala Indonesia) that they didn't have a hope.

Their economies are in the state they are in because their government are so totally manipulated by the west wich basically force these government into becoming massive slave labour states to pay of the debt to the World bank. Diversified is kind of a misnomer as they are forced to produce "cash crop goods" and if the west can not buy it they are left in the lurge. That is what happened and it's the reason these economies are so unstable. They are set up to be jerked around in their imperial chains.

There is so much to say about Indonesia but you should probably be made aware that the dictator who created the mess was backed by the usual supspects. No surprise and no surprise the whole massive resource rich country was turned into a Western slave labour colony

Learning to read will save you some time, effort and needless effrontery.

You started the name calling and i will call you on each and every false claim you make. It's cleary going to keep my going for very long but i am not going to stand the insult when you make such blatently false claims. You keep getting caugh yet you just keep posting as if you said it....

The alarmist's view is that China's economy is now so large, and so hooked into the world, that if (or when) it has a crisis it will precipitate another depression, not merely a recession.

They currency is under government control so unless the Chinese government have a crisis ( Massive civil revolt, war etc) there will be no such event. China is simply not open to the kind of foreign forces that normally wreck economies in this world and if they were we would have seen it in 1997. Finally China is not hooked on the world; the world is hooked on China.

I'd say it will definitely cause another recession. Too many Western nations (mostly in the form of big-business) have oriented themsleves to China as a cheap producer/supplier, ignoring other, more traditional, sources, all in the name of dividends for their shareholders.

As i said in the last section these self same multinations now depend in great part on China for future competitive growth. China is the "final frontier" in terms of massive potential growth and earnings for most multinationals. If this was not so they would not be investing so much money on such a long term basis.

Again you miss the point, as you have each time you've posted on this little item. I was giving you a hypothetical situation, based on observations coming out of China regarding their energy limits.

They do not have "limits" as such and your scare mongering over their trouble with energy supply in some regions will never prove your point about future energy supplies in China. The workers are doing better and better every year and it will take massively more than temporary energy shortages to change this fact even marginally.

You decided to give an answer to a completely different question. Still having difficulty reading, then?

Just more accusations and avoidance of the points wich i all addressed in the first post. You should have realised your mistakes then and the longer you keep this up the more obvious your errors in judgement and understanding will become. I did my best to avoid this but you went for the throat right from the start.

No, but in today's textile industry a few blackouts and a missed order or two does a factory kill.

Links? Proof? You have not supplied no more than one link ( wich said the same as the 3 i gave on the same topic) to back your claim wich is hardly surprising considering they are mostly wrong and you would not have been able to find supporting evidence. A factory does not dissapear when one customer stops ordering much as that would suit this kind of fantasy statement. If your price is right or you have multiple clients you do not just go under. Even if the factory does somehow go bankrupt a factory building does not just dissapear and is not lost for future production.

And the "fantastic" is me showing you why you shouldn't be crowing about the improvements.

All achievement is relative and for the average Chinese worker things are getting better on all fronts whatever denials you might concoct based on no evidence as per usual. I did not crow and tried to show you that it's not a giant slave labour camp unless in your opinion slaves should get paid higher ever year for no good reason at all. I simply do not understand your attacks on my information. You do not even address the sources i quoted and just breeze past as if your reality can not be bothered with this one?

ATS has been riddled with threads and posts about what many commentators in the west call China's "Slave Wages".

I can not be everywhere but if you see these posts direct my attention there so i can see if it's really so. Denial is futile when i have free time and energy enough to correct nonsense i detect. It is funny you bring this up as i also posted a link indicating that China now has the second largest economy in the world based on purchasing power. How does that reconcile with slave labour wages? If that is slavery in your book your clearly not holding the dictionary.

Just because they are better than last year doesn't mean much. All of which is beside the point I was making, which was how are you going to pay your workers at all if you don't get orders?

Well as the links i posted indicated from the start these increases may be small but the products are then apparently very cheap as buying power are increasing in leaps and bounds. Your point is moot as they are getting orders and will continue to do so while the government is willing to create buying and production power by increasing the flow of money in the Chinese economy.

Stellar

[edit on 6-12-2005 by StellarX]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Uh-huh. Tienman 1989 ws the mark of a mature democracy. So is the persecution of Falun Gong. Or the demand that western-based ISPs make web-user details open to the government.

Well smart guy that i am i never called or assumed China to be a mature demoracy. whatever the hell that is supposed to mean anyways. Can you give me a example of a mature democracy ( that is actually democractic in any meaningfull way).

China has many many issues to resolve and there are plenty of people in government that should probably do long terms in jail for their oppressive practices but these things does not change the reality of massive economic change and growth.

There are massive slaugthers of innocents all over the world but for some reason this instance is brough up so much. I am perfectly sure that many more people will die yearly in the thousands of protest and small communal uprisings all over China than did in that instance 15 years ago. If you want to help change the world for the better why bot get involved in countries were your government has influence enough to change the suffering of people? I am sure i could give you examples if you want to do something where it will matter.

Oh, Burma is so much worse than China because they have locked up the winner of the election and won't allow her to take part in political life, so different to the CCP locking one of its own members away under house-arrest until he dies, just for asking some students to go home...

Fact is America and Britain have influence in Burma and if they ordered her release tommorow she would be. She is a awesome women and have been abandoned by the west that sees only what it wants to see namely profit.

I refuse to attack Chinese conduct against it's own civilians while the west who condemns them goes around bombing invading and generally starve millions of foreigners. If you can not change the conduct of the west wich is supposedly so civil and democracy why on earth even bring up Chinese atrocity against it's OWN nationals?

Your bias is your undoing and as long as you have a vested interest in the details of this discussion you will never accept or understand the facts i have offered.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Fact is America and Britain have influence in Burma and if they ordered her release tommorow she would be. She is a awesome women and have been abandoned by the west that sees only what it wants to see namely profit.

I refuse to attack Chinese conduct against it's own civilians while the west who condemns them goes around bombing invading and generally starve millions of foreigners. If you can not change the conduct of the west wich is supposedly so civil and democracy why on earth even bring up Chinese atrocity against it's OWN nationals?

Your bias is your undoing and as long as you have a vested interest in the details of this discussion you will never accept or understand the facts i have offered.

OMG, your ignorance is astounding. The UK and the US have ZERO influence in Burma. SLORC (who now have a new name) have begun construction of a new administrative capital out in the jungle because (one rumour has it) they are paranoid about the west deciding to swat them like the flies they are.

As for starving millions of foreigners, the reason nothing is being done about Darfur is because it can't be put on the Security Council's agenda because China has done an oil deal with Sudan and threatened to use their right of veto on any resolution brought against Sudan.

Better check your own bias there, mate.

You keep responding to points I didn't make, when I point this out you accuse me of ignorance. When I explain, step-by-step, why your answer has no bearing, you accuse me of lying...

I'm perfectly willing to attack Australian conduct against Australian citizens as well as foreigners, both at home and abroad. I, for one, believe the mandatory detention of illegal immigrants to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

Thread closed due to people straying horribly off track.