China throwing down the gauntlet?

[Modelworks]

The reason why the "focus" has been on terrorism and illegal immigration is because the media constantly talks about it. Threats change over time. However, if you look back at the last 30 years, some people would argue that China has be

My concern over the last few years has been the amount of money and resources China has put into their military. They are increasing spending ever year into adding more planes, equipment and defense while we are trying to cut spending and reducing the military.

A good site that keeps up with China military is:
http://www.sinodefence.com/default.asp

The page covering the defenses is pretty impressive compared with what we are doing.
http://www.sinodefence.com/special/airdefence/fortress-china.asp

With defenses like that a hijacked plane would never have gotten anywhere near the pentagon. Here we spend time verifying the plane, making phone calls to departments and by the time we scramble a fighter it is all over. I see that in Beijing the AA defense is always deployed and active.

 

[Dari]

So why would the world follow the US if it's going to act irrationally? The world certainly didn't followed the US into Iraq in 2003 and it's certainly not going to stop trading with China just because it said so. I never said China was the only manufacturing base in the world.

I'm somewhat perplexed why you seem to think that the US can simply just move everything out of a country and setup a base elsewhere in a short period of time. Obviously China have a competitive advantage in some area and that's why every major company in this world have some sort of operations in China.



Free ride? Are you telling me that you have not benefitted from the strong dollar as well? Give me a break man, you're not making a lot of sense in alot of the things that you're saying. I'm not trying to insult you here, but you make it seem like as if China is expendable. I hate to break it to you, but it's simply not true. If the US can somehow uniterally do what you say it can do, it would have done it by now. Why the hell would the US even bother dealing with a murderous regime in Beijing if there were no advantages in the first place?

I don't know what is so difficult to understand. A lot of decisions made wrt China are business related, not political. Hence, if China wants to maintain a slavish system where labor is extremely cheap and their police state maintains powerful control, that is fine by the business lobby. If China wants to have good infrastructure and a poor environmental policy to keep businesses happy, that is fine by our business lobby. However, 'China plus 1' ensures that these businesses have an exit strategy wrt China. American businesses will remain until something happens. However, they are not beholden to China.

The free ride was with regards to Bretton Woods. Back then, there was a fixed exchange rate to the dollar and, to make themselves competitive, our trading partners would just devalue their currency. It was unfair but we carried the burden. Today, most currencies are traded but the US has an official 'strong dollar' policy.

 

[lsquare]

My concern over the last few years has been the amount of money and resources China has put into their military. They are increasing spending ever year into adding more planes, equipment and defense while we are trying to cut spending and reducing the military.

A good site that keeps up with China military is:
http://www.sinodefence.com/default.asp

The page covering the defenses is pretty impressive compared with what we are doing.
http://www.sinodefence.com/special/airdefence/fortress-china.asp

With defenses like that a hijacked plane would never have gotten anywhere near the pentagon. Here we spend time verifying the plane, making phone calls to departments and by the time we scramble a fighter it is all over. I see that in Beijing the AA defense is always deployed and active.

I agree with you here. I've been a long time believer that China poses a major military threat to the US. They have not been very transparent with their military spending and activities over the past decade or so (i.e. ASAT test couple of years ago). This is why it's kind of BS how the US has been expending its resources in other less important areas and not focusing on the emerging threats. Make no mistake about it, China is a growing military threat and is seeking to challenge US power in the Asia-Pacific region. The US must rise up and contain the threat.

 

[lsquare]

I don't know what is so difficult to understand. A lot of decisions made wrt China are business related, not political. Hence, if China wants to maintain a slavish system where labor is extremely cheap and their police state maintains powerful control, that is fine by the business lobby. If China wants to have good infrastructure and a poor environmental policy to keep businesses happy, that is fine by our business lobby. However, 'China plus 1' ensures that these businesses have an exit strategy wrt China. American businesses will remain until something happens. However, they are not beholden to China.

I'm perplexed why you seem to think things will be this easy. I have no idea how you come to such conclusions, but w/e. It's obvious we have fundamental differences here.

The free ride was with regards to Bretton Woods. Back then, there was a fixed exchange rate to the dollar and, to make themselves competitive, our trading partners would just devalue their currency. It was unfair but we carried the burden. Today, most currencies are traded but the US has an official 'strong dollar' policy.

I have a pretty good understanding of the US' modern history. I don't need you to lecture me here. I actually double majored in both History and Political Science. Regardless, I'm not saying my opinions are anymore qualified than yours. However, I strongly disagree with your assessment that other countries had a free ride here.

 

[Dari]

I agree with you here. I've been a long time believer that China poses a major military threat to the US. They have not been very transparent with their military spending and activities over the past decade or so (i.e. ASAT test couple of years ago). This is why it's kind of BS how the US has been expending its resources in other less important areas and not focusing on the emerging threats. Make no mistake about it, China is a growing military threat and is seeking to challenge US power in the Asia-Pacific region. The US must rise up and contain the threat.

We spend money on terror-related weapons because we are fighting terrorists that want to kill us now, today, as I speak. However, our military budget has not gotten smaller. It has grown by a lot since 2001. Even better, we have highly capable allies that have modern weapons and are more than capable of complementing our strategy in the region.

 

[Dari]

I'm perplexed why you seem to think things will be this easy. I have no idea how you come to such conclusions, but w/e. It's obvious we have fundamental differences here.



I have a pretty good understanding of the US' modern history. I don't need you to lecture me here. I actually double majored in both History and Political Science. Regardless, I'm not saying my opinions are anymore qualified than yours. However, I strongly disagree with your assessment that other countries had a free ride here.

I don't get where you conclude that I said this would be easy. However, I think that America would have a better chance of convincing its allies than having them go their own way or allying with China...

You really should have taken some economic history lesson since you don't understand what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

 

[lsquare]

We spend money on terror-related weapons because we are fighting terrorists that want to kill us now, today, as I speak. However, our military budget has not gotten smaller. It has grown by a lot since 2001. Even better, we have highly capable allies that have modern weapons and are more than capable of complementing our strategy in the region.

I hear you, but let's put things in perspective here. Are we really any safer as a result of all of the money that we've spent on fighting terrorism? Despite the billions that we've spent on enhancing homeland security, that 23-year old Nigerian national was close to detonating explosives on a plane near Detroit.

 

[lsquare]

I don't get where you conclude that I said this would be easy. However, I think that America would have a better chance of convincing its allies than having them go their own way or allying with China...

Perhaps you should reread what you have said.

You really should have taken some economic history lesson since you don't understand what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

Einstein, you want to elaborate on how those countries got a free ride from the Bretton Woods System then?

 

[Dari]

Perhaps you should reread what you have said.



Einstein, you want to elaborate on how those countries got a free ride from the Bretton Woods System then?

Well, one simple example would be Japan. After WWII America accounted for 50% of all world trade. The yen to dollar ratio was 15 to 1. As the Japanese economy got stronger that ratio should have declined. However, the Japanese just devalued their currency. By 1971 it was 308 to 1. The same thing happened in Europe. Since the dollar was the reserve currency, it was the big loser in all these devaluations. Hence, we were becoming less competitive while our allies were benefitting. After the system collapsed in 1971, the world went to a floating exchange rate. However, the US has always maintained a 'strong dollar' policy because it is still implicitly seen as the world's reserve currency.

 

[rchiu]

It takes one to know one doesn't it?



If what you say is right, why haven't we moved elsewhere?



Yet, we're still using China to manufacture most of the shit that we're using on a daily basis.



This isn't a zero-sum game. Anyways, anyone can claim to have worked at a world financial institution. If you really did then great, but frankly I'm disappointed by some of your irrational responses earlier. This isn't a one-sided game that the US can easily win. If it can punish China like that, it would have earlier.

I agree that the US must have the upper hand with the Taiwan issue. It's in the US' interest to do so.



You're giving US power way too much credit here. The US ain't god, it can't accomplish some of the things that you say it can. If it was this easy, it would have been done by now. With such simple thinking, you're essentially setting the foundation for disaster. Acting irrationally towards China will not resolve the US' problems either.

What's disaster is giving too much credit to China in this US China trade relationship, and thinking everything should take a backseat for good US China relationship.

I don't think most of people here supports starting a trade war with China tomorrow for no good reason. Everyone here is simply stating the obvious, China is not indispensable trade partner. US export to them is insignificant. China imports to US are not vital natural resources or high tech equipment. US companies mostly focus on high value adding product and serivce instead on being low price leader, therefore losing China as low cost manufacturing partner would be painful, but not impossible. China purchasing of US debt is good to have, but not an absolute necessity and may in fact be better if US stop issuing too much debt due to lower demand from Chinese.

Given those facts, US need not give into China in negotiating matters of national interest. If arming Taiwan is important to US national interest, then do it. If not, then don't. But the decision should not be based on oh how pissed off China is gonna be and oh what if they stop buying US product or bond.

 

[lsquare]

What's disaster is giving too much credit to China in this US China trade relationship, and thinking everything should take a backseat for good US China relationship.

No one is suggesting that everything takes a backseat for good Sino-US relations. Where did you get that from?

I don't think most of people here supports starting a trade war with China tomorrow for no good reason. Everyone here is simply stating the obvious, China is not indispensable trade partner. US export to them is insignificant. China imports to US are not vital natural resources or high tech equipment. US companies mostly focus on high value adding product and serivce instead on being low price leader, therefore losing China as low cost manufacturing partner would be painful, but not impossible. China purchasing of US debt is good to have, but not an absolute necessity and may in fact be better if US stop issuing too much debt due to lower demand from Chinese.

Where do you think future US economic growth will be? You think Obama is being a fool by saying that the US's economic future is tied in with Asia? US export to China is definitely insignificant at this point in time, but this has to do with the fact that the PRC is manipulating its currency to make US exports more expensive to Chinese consumers. When the CNY is allowed to appreciate, then US exports will increase barring any new tariffs that the Chinese will slap on US goods. You're not looking long-term here. Of course it's not impossible to dump China as a trade partner, but what's the rationale for doing so?

It's funny how you say it's not an absolute necessity, but that's what the Obama Administration has been doing for the past year. Have you not paid attention to the great pain that Geithner has taken to assure the Chinese government that US government bonds are worth buying?

Of course it is in the US' long term interest to see that China doesn't remain as its biggest creditor, but don't forget we're in a recession right now. It is painfully obvious what the US has to do to ensure that what caused the booms and busts of the past doesn't repeat in the future.

Given those facts, US need not give into China in negotiating matters of national interest. If arming Taiwan is important to US national interest, then do it. If not, then don't. But the decision should not be based on oh how pissed off China is gonna be and oh what if they stop buying US product or bond.

Do you even realize how one-sided your comments are? You're essentially painting this as China getting a free-ride from its policies. Let's get the facts straight here, if what you say is true, then why is the US seeking China's cooperation from climate change to addressing the Iranian nuclear issue?

The only thing that I agree with you here is that the US should arm the Taiwanese regardless of possible setbacks to Sino-US relations.

 

[lsquare]

Well, one simple example would be Japan. After WWII America accounted for 50% of all world trade. The yen to dollar ratio was 15 to 1. As the Japanese economy got stronger that ratio should have declined. However, the Japanese just devalued their currency. By 1971 it was 308 to 1. The same thing happened in Europe. Since the dollar was the reserve currency, it was the big loser in all these devaluations. Hence, we were becoming less competitive while our allies were benefitting. After the system collapsed in 1971, the world went to a floating exchange rate. However, the US has always maintained a 'strong dollar' policy because it is still implicitly seen as the world's reserve currency.

This is not called free-riding. The US benefitted from cheap Japanese exports at the time. Millions of Americans benefitted from cheaper products from abroad as a result of the strong dollar. How is this called free-riding?

The collapse of the Brettons Wood Systems had nothing to do with the US becoming less competitive as a result of Japan's economic growth. It was not a zero-sum economic relationship. Did you even read the article that you linked to me? It outlined many reasons why the Brettons Wood System collapsed.

 

[rchiu]

No one is suggesting that everything takes a backseat for good Sino-US relations. Where did you get that from? .

From your setting the foundation to disaster comments like not having a trade relations with China is a disaster waiting to happen.

Where do you think future US economic growth will be? You think Obama is being a fool by saying that the US's economic future is tied in with Asia? US export to China is definitely insignificant at this point in time, but this has to do with the fact that the PRC is manipulating its currency to make US exports more expensive to Chinese consumers. When the CNY is allowed to appreciate, then US exports will increase barring any new tariffs that the Chinese will slap on US goods. You're not looking long-term here. Of course it's not impossible to dump China as a trade partner, but what's the rationale for doing so?

It's funny how you say it's not an absolute necessity, but that's what the Obama Administration has been doing for the past year. Have you not paid attention to the great pain that Geithner has taken to assure the Chinese government that US government bonds are worth buying?

Of course it is in the US' long term interest to see that China doesn't remain as its biggest creditor, but don't forget we're in a recession right now. It is painfully obvious what the US has to do to ensure that what caused the booms and busts of the past doesn't repeat in the future.

Do you even realize how one-sided your comments are? You're essentially painting this as China getting a free-ride from its policies. Let's get the facts straight here, if what you say is true, then why is the US seeking China's cooperation from climate change to addressing the Iranian nuclear issue?

The only thing that I agree with you here is that the US should arm the Taiwanese regardless of possible setbacks to Sino-US relations.

And again you are overstating the importance of Chinese market for US export. Big population and economy does not directly correlate to buying American. US's largest export partner by far is Canada and Mexico and that's because 1) location and 2) NAFTA and 3) Canadian and Mexican's openess towards US product. Japan with it's big economy only takes in $55 Billion US export, that's because Japanese have strong preference to local product and very different tastes in product due to cultural differences. China is going to be similar to Japan and you'd be naive to believe they will 1) open up their market with no string attached, 2) Their consumer will buy up whatever the US feeds them.

And YES I believe Obama and Geithner are fvcking idiots for assuring China on the quality of US T-B because of Obama admin's failed fiscal displine and policy. If they had any type of self control in government spending and not get into 1.xx trillion dollar deficit per year, China would be the one begging for US T-B because not many instrument has the rating and the quantity where Chinese can invest their massive build up of current account balance due to excessive currency control.

In terms of investment opportunities, I believe you and Obama are naive in thinking China is where all the opportunities are when India has similar population growth and Brazil has exploding GDP growth and both has much more open attitude towards the western culture, the products and trade opportunities.

Well certainly China is a player in UN and all matters like climate change with them being one of the 5 permanent member with veto power. But Russia was one of the big 5 and the US was in cold war with them since the end of WW2 and the US didn't set this "foundation for disaster". It will certainly be easier for US to push their international agenda if they have Chinese support. But the US has done well in the past without China, without Russia by working closely with their traditional allies, why all of the sudden make such a big deal with this tie with China? Like I said I work in an international organization and I can tell you that Chinese has the intention to and is already gathering support from those "anti-us" factions. They will smile and nod when they see US representatives but under the table they are already doing everything to gain strenght in expense of the US. And the reason they are doing it under the table is because they KNOW THEY NEED THE US FOR THEIR ECONOMIC GROWTH. Not the other way around.

Sure the US knows China needs US not the other way around too, but unfortuntely the US government is dominated by special interests and big businesses and this US-Sino relations is driven by the need to generate profit for these special interests and big business, not the strategic and long term benefits of this country.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Your suggestions are simply ludicrous. If the US companies were to manufacture their goods elsewhere, then the cost of goods will definitely go up. At the same time, these US companies will have a hard time competing with companies that manufacture their goods in countries like China. The US cannot tell other Western countries like the UK or even Canada to stop trading with China.

You have absolutely no idea how crucial China has been in buying US government bonds. That's how Americans have benefitted from low interest rates. The US will need countries like China to continue buying US bonds as its tries to stabilize the economy. Such a plan will be derailed if China were to stop doing what it's doing.

No, they are not. I'm sure India, for example, would be more than happy to pick up our manufacturing business if things ever deteriorated that far with China. We would experience temporary discomfort here as the transition took place, but things would be back to "normal" in no time once India was off and running.

You also greatly over-exaggerate how much of our debt China owns.

Data for the chart was obtained from the US Treasury website, as noted in the Description (before anyone tries the LOL WIKIPEDIA! card).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foreign_Holders_of_United_States_Treasury_Securities.svg

China owns less than 25% of our total foreign debt, with Japan not very far behind them. Yes, China owns quite a bit of our foreign debt (thus having a bit of sway over our policy decisions), but it is not a majority by any means.

Facts > Doom and Gloom, Chicken Little. You should also do your research before proclaiming others to be "ludicrous" and "absolutely having no idea" what they're talking about.

 

[Dari]

This is not called free-riding. The US benefitted from cheap Japanese exports at the time. Millions of Americans benefitted from cheaper products from abroad as a result of the strong dollar. How is this called free-riding?

The collapse of the Brettons Wood Systems had nothing to do with the US becoming less competitive as a result of Japan's economic growth. It was not a zero-sum economic relationship. Did you even read the article that you linked to me? It outlined many reasons why the Brettons Wood System collapsed.

Of course it was free-riding. And we knew it was free-riding. The United States explicitly decided to allow the cheap imports in order to help these foreign economies to develop and stand on their own two feet after the devastation of WWII. Also, I don't understand why you see a plus in cheap imports when Americans could also make these products. Sure, there may be a plus, but it's far outweighed by the negative. In fact, a lot of the jobs that are lost because of cheap imports never return. Tell me, are you happy everytime a manufacturing job is lost to globalization or do you only look at the positive and ignore the long-term negative?

As for the Bretton Woods system, the system was becoming intolerable over the years and so nixon axed it. America was becoming anti-competitive. Why do you think he imposed a 10% import surcharge and wage freezes and an eventual devaluation of the dollar?

 

[Dari]

From your setting the foundation to disaster comments like not having a trade relations with China is a disaster waiting to happen.



And again you are overstating the importance of Chinese market for US export. Big population and economy does not directly correlate to buying American. US's largest export partner by far is Canada and Mexico and that's because 1) location and 2) NAFTA and 3) Canadian and Mexican's openess towards US product. Japan with it's big economy only takes in $55 Billion US export, that's because Japanese have strong preference to local product and very different tastes in product due to cultural differences. China is going to be similar to Japan and you'd be naive to believe they will 1) open up their market with no string attached, 2) Their consumer will buy up whatever the US feeds them.

And YES I believe Obama and Geithner are fvcking idiots for assuring China on the quality of US T-B because of Obama admin's failed fiscal displine and policy. If they had any type of self control in government spending and not get into 1.xx trillion dollar deficit per year, China would be the one begging for US T-B because not many instrument has the rating and the quantity where Chinese can invest their massive build up of current account balance due to excessive currency control.

In terms of investment opportunities, I believe you and Obama are naive in thinking China is where all the opportunities are when India has similar population growth and Brazil has exploding GDP growth and both has much more open attitude towards the western culture, the products and trade opportunities.

Well certainly China is a player in UN and all matters like climate change with them being one of the 5 permanent member with veto power. But Russia was one of the big 5 and the US was in cold war with them since the end of WW2 and the US didn't set this "foundation for disaster". It will certainly be easier for US to push their international agenda if they have Chinese support. But the US has done well in the past without China, without Russia by working closely with their traditional allies, why all of the sudden make such a big deal with this tie with China? Like I said I work in an international organization and I can tell you that Chinese has the intention to and is already gathering support from those "anti-us" factions. They will smile and nod when they see US representatives but under the table they are already doing everything to gain strenght in expense of the US. And the reason they are doing it under the table is because they KNOW THEY NEED THE US FOR THEIR ECONOMIC GROWTH. Not the other way around.

Sure the US knows China needs US not the other way around too, but unfortuntely the US government is dominated by special interests and big businesses and this US-Sino relations is driven by the need to generate profit for these special interests and big business, not the strategic and long term benefits of this country.

You are right. These Asian countries do not return the favor after we take in their imports. They only want to export their products and do not want ours. Why? Because they only want the benefits of globalization, not its negatives. I remember in the early days of Clinton's first term when he threatened Japan with massive sanctions when they refused to allow Motorola cellphones. And this is our ally! Korea is no different and China will behave the exact same way although they had to give way early on in their development cycle in order to join the WTO.

 

[lsquare]

No, they are not. I'm sure India, for example, would be more than happy to pick up our manufacturing business if things ever deteriorated that far with China. We would experience temporary discomfort here as the transition took place, but things would be back to "normal" in no time once India was off and running.

You also greatly over-exaggerate how much of our debt China owns.

Data for the chart was obtained from the US Treasury website, as noted in the Description (before anyone tries the LOL WIKIPEDIA! card).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foreign_Holders_of_United_States_Treasury_Securities.svg

China owns less than 25% of our total foreign debt, with Japan not very far behind them. Yes, China owns quite a bit of our foreign debt (thus having a bit of sway over our policy decisions), but it is not a majority by any means.

Facts > Doom and Gloom, Chicken Little. You should also do your research before proclaiming others to be "ludicrous" and "absolutely having no idea" what they're talking about.

You think using Wikipedia as your source will make you look credible? It's fine if you don't believe me then that's fine by me, but it's obvious that the Obama and even the previous Bush Administration see things a lot differently from you.

I'm glad we both agree that facts are greater than doom and gloom. It's often the uneducated that would resort to name calling when they can't debate on an even level, but I'm sure that's something you already know. No one needs to do more research to understand this topic anymore than you do. I'm just glad you don't work for the State Department.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

You think using Wikipedia as your source will make you look credible? It's fine if you don't believe me then that's fine by me, but it's obvious that the Obama and even the previous Bush Administration see things a lot differently from you.

I'm glad we both agree that facts are greater than doom and gloom. It's often the uneducated that would resort to name calling when they can't debate on an even level, but I'm sure that's something you already know. No one needs to do more research to understand this topic anymore than you do. I'm just glad you don't work for the State Department.

Gotta love how you trotted out the "lol Wikipedia!" when I even put in the disclaimer that the chart was made with data taken from the Treasury website (which is also doubly noted in the information for the chart, which links to the exact Treasury data from which the chart was made)!

You are the one who has resorted to name calling pages ago. Continue in your ignorant bliss, however. You have already been debunked by numerous posters in this thread, myself included.

You have extremely low reading comprehension abilities. Or you're just trying really hard to troll. I can't tell which one it is...maybe a combination of both?

 

[lsquare]

From your setting the foundation to disaster comments like not having a trade relations with China is a disaster waiting to happen.

I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Prove it.

And again you are overstating the importance of Chinese market for US export. Big population and economy does not directly correlate to buying American. US's largest export partner by far is Canada and Mexico and that's because 1) location and 2) NAFTA and 3) Canadian and Mexican's openess towards US product. Japan with it's big economy only takes in $55 Billion US export, that's because Japanese have strong preference to local product and very different tastes in product due to cultural differences. China is going to be similar to Japan and you'd be naive to believe they will 1) open up their market with no string attached, 2) Their consumer will buy up whatever the US feeds them.

Again, you're understating the importance of China here. I never said big population and economy correlates to buying American. What I did said is that China and much of Asia represents a big opportunity for future American exports. Again stop putting words in my mouth and diverge from what I have been saying. You're getting pretty good at that.

And YES I believe Obama and Geithner are fvcking idiots for assuring China on the quality of US T-B because of Obama admin's failed fiscal displine and policy. If they had any type of self control in government spending and not get into 1.xx trillion dollar deficit per year, China would be the one begging for US T-B because not many instrument has the rating and the quantity where Chinese can invest their massive build up of current account balance due to excessive currency control.

Get your facts straight here. Obama wasn't the one that messed up the government's finances. It was the previous administration here. The Obama Administration inherited much of the financial mess and they're dealing with the problem.

In terms of investment opportunities, I believe you and Obama are naive in thinking China is where all the opportunities are when India has similar population growth and Brazil has exploding GDP growth and both has much more open attitude towards the western culture, the products and trade opportunities.

Neither Obama nor I have dismissed India and Brazil's economic potential. What I have been saying all along is that China is not expendable as you seem to think that they are.

Well certainly China is a player in UN and all matters like climate change with them being one of the 5 permanent member with veto power. But Russia was one of the big 5 and the US was in cold war with them since the end of WW2 and the US didn't set this "foundation for disaster". It will certainly be easier for US to push their international agenda if they have Chinese support. But the US has done well in the past without China, without Russia by working closely with their traditional allies, why all of the sudden make such a big deal with this tie with China? Like I said I work in an international organization and I can tell you that Chinese has the intention to and is already gathering support from those "anti-us" factions. They will smile and nod when they see US representatives but under the table they are already doing everything to gain strenght in expense of the US. And the reason they are doing it under the table is because they KNOW THEY NEED THE US FOR THEIR ECONOMIC GROWTH. Not the other way around.

There's a fundamental difference between Sino-US relations and Soviet-US relations. For starters, the Soviets did not pose any economic threat to the US at all. It was mostly a military threat. In terms of trades, Soviet-US trade was never at the same level that Sino-US trade is at today.

Whether you really work for an international organization or not is one thing. This does not make your comments anymore qualified than mine. It's simply ludicrous to say that China is expendable here. US power and influence has declined over the past decade. Again if things were as easy to accomplish as you seem to think that they are, it would have bee done already. Your impression of how the world works does not correlate with reality here.

Sure the US knows China needs US not the other way around too, but unfortuntely the US government is dominated by special interests and big businesses and this US-Sino relations is driven by the need to generate profit for these special interests and big business, not the strategic and long term benefits of this country.

 

[lsquare]

Gotta love how you trotted out the "lol Wikipedia!" when I even put in the disclaimer that the chart was made with data taken from the Treasury website (which is also doubly noted in the information for the chart, which links to the exact Treasury data from which the chart was made)!

You are the one who has resorted to name calling pages ago. Continue in your ignorant bliss, however. You have already been debunked by numerous posters in this thread, myself included.

You have extremely low reading comprehension abilities. Or you're just trying really hard to troll. I can't tell which one it is...maybe a combination of both?

The only one here trolling here is you. You haven't proven anything other than simply rehashing your non-sense. Are you that pathetic here as to resort to name calling? You wouldn't pass a university course by telling the professor to go and get the treasury's data from a wikipedia link. I don't see any other posters posting the same kind of non-sense as you.

The only ignorant retard here is you. You're already proven to be a failure when it comes to conducting this debate in a civilized manner.

 

[lsquare]

Of course it was free-riding. And we knew it was free-riding. The United States explicitly decided to allow the cheap imports in order to help these foreign economies to develop and stand on their own two feet after the devastation of WWII. Also, I don't understand why you see a plus in cheap imports when Americans could also make these products. Sure, there may be a plus, but it's far outweighed by the negative. In fact, a lot of the jobs that are lost because of cheap imports never return. Tell me, are you happy everytime a manufacturing job is lost to globalization or do you only look at the positive and ignore the long-term negative?

I'm not going to go around in circles with you over that point. If those jobs could have been kept in the US, it would have been kept. You're essentially arguing that the US should stop trading with the rest of the world then. You're strictly looking at the negatives of globalization. Yes, it's obvious that there will be losers when we're trading and competing with the rest of the world. You're wrong if you think that there are no winners here.

As for the Bretton Woods system, the system was becoming intolerable over the years and so nixon axed it. America was becoming anti-competitive. Why do you think he imposed a 10% import surcharge and wage freezes and an eventual devaluation of the dollar?

There were many reasons why the Bretton Woods System failed. I strongly disagree with you that the system failed as a result of Japan's econoic growth.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

The only one here trolling here is you. You haven't proven anything other than simply rehashing your non-sense. Are you that pathetic here as to resort to name calling? You wouldn't pass a university course by telling the professor to go and get the treasury's data from a wikipedia link. I don't see any other posters posting the same kind of non-sense as you.

The only ignorant retard here is you. You're already proven to be a failure when it comes to conducting this debate in a civilized manner.

Wow, you fail...and you fail hard.

FROM THE LINK ITSELF (bold emphasis added by me around the treas.gov link):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foreign_Holders_of_United_States_Treasury_Securities.svg

Description Foreign Holders of United States Treasury Securities.svg
English: The share of the foreign holders of United States Treasury Securities as of September 2009. Created with an experimental chart tool made by me (McSush). The data for this was obtained from: http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

And check it out, the name-calling from you at the end, while completely failing to read what was written.

Just stop. You already look foolish.

Still persisting that ... what was it now?

You wouldn't pass a university course by telling the professor to go and get the treasury's data from a wikipedia link.

I guess the official Treasury .gov website wouldn't pass a university course either, eh there, professor?



Typical response. Deflect and discredit, but never actually address the point. I have provided (yet again) official numbers proving my point. Where are yours, oh Mr. Expert on US-China Foreign Relations?

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Interesting point from those official Treasury numbers. As of Nov 2009, China's holdings of our treasuries has gone down $10 billion, while Japan's has increased by $12 billion and the UK's holdings have increased by $47 billion. So as of Nov 2009, China has reduced their holdings of our debt (which is inline with them constantly questioning our economic and fiscal policies), while the other top countries have increased their holdings.

 

[Dari]

I'm not going to go around in circles with you over that point. If those jobs could have been kept in the US, it would have been kept. You're essentially arguing that the US should stop trading with the rest of the world then. You're strictly looking at the negatives of globalization. Yes, it's obvious that there will be losers when we're trading and competing with the rest of the world. You're wrong if you think that there are no winners here.



There were many reasons why the Bretton Woods System failed. I strongly disagree with you that the system failed as a result of Japan's econoic growth.

Wow, your conclusions from my posts are incredibly simplistic. No need to continue this.

 

[Dari]

Interesting point from those official Treasury numbers. As of Nov 2009, China's holdings of our treasuries has gone down $10 billion, while Japan's has increased by $12 billion and the UK's holdings have increased by $47 billion. So as of Nov 2009, China has reduced their holdings of our debt (which is inline with them constantly questioning our economic and fiscal policies), while the other top countries have increased their holdings.

That's an interesting point. It is a smart move on their part considering that money could be better spent in the developing world where returns are greater.