Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

We have been vindicated.

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 10:57:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Last week, The New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-recipient Paul Krugman wrote an article called "Hitting China's Wall." "The signs are now unmistakable: China is in big trouble. We're not talking about some minor setback along the way, but something more fundamental. The country's whole way of doing business, the economic system that has driven three decades of incredible growth, has reached its limits. You could say that the Chinese model is about to hit its Great Wall, and the only question now is just how bad the crash will be."

Later, Ben Levisohn wrote another column called "Smoke Signals from China." "In the classic disaster flick 'The Towering Inferno' partygoers ignored a fire in a storage room because they assumed it has been contained. Are investors making the same mistake with China?" He goes on to answer his question, saying, "Unlike three months ago, when investors were placing big bets that China's policymakers would pump cash into the economy to spur growth, the markets seem to have accepted the fact that sluggish growth for the world's second largest economy is its new normal."

Meanwhile, even Goldman Sachs (the ones who predicted that China's economy might pass the US's by 2030, has hopped on the bandwagon, cutting its forecast of Chinese growth to 7.4 percent.

Every one of us who has predicted an economic meltdown and political collapse of China in contrast to the pseudo-analysts that predicted a "redistribution of global power" have been utterly vindicated. Our fringe views are now conventional wisdom. China will not be the world power. It will not even be the economic power. China is finished. Everyone is admitting it. We have won. The stupid hordes duped themselves once again, but by the time they suck on to Turkey or Japan as the new new world power, they'll have forgotten everything that made them so wrong. For those of us who understand basic principles of economics, it's a constant uphill struggle.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 11:05:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And yes, I'm sure that all of you already know who Krugman is. I'd just like to rub it in.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 2:19:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This talk has been ongoing since the early 50s.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 2:20:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyway, I'm sure you'll never admit you're wrong on this one, so I won't bother commenting further.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 2:26:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
China's 2009 "hard landing":

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.time.com...

...never happened. I'll give Krugman credit he didn't call it then, but the bottom line is that any talk about China from the US will be heavily propagandistic, and will typically appeal to the chronically ignorant.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 3:26:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How have you been vindicated, Eitan?

The China story is pretty simple. The economy had stagnated under an extremely innefficient state run economic model and thus had very low levels of income per capita.

The economy undertook dramatic reforms to move away from that model and began to "catch up" (as all low income countries do when they reform) with wealthier economies.

China's per capita GDP is something like 20% of Americans. It will continue to converge until it is closer.

If China continues reforming, they may even reach our level of GDP per capita (though I doubt that).

There is a lot of reason to believe that China GDP numbers have been inflated by building useless real estate crap, but anyone who has been to China knows the place is pretty dynamic.

Point is that China's growth has been mostly real and will continue to grow faster than developd countries for a while until it settles in at a level of GDP per capita that fits it model.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 7:20:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 2:26:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
China's 2009 "hard landing":

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.time.com...

...never happened. I'll give Krugman credit he didn't call it then, but the bottom line is that any talk about China from the US will be heavily propagandistic, and will typically appeal to the chronically ignorant.

Doesn't require a refutation, if you had actually read my position.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 11:54:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 7:20:43 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 2:26:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
China's 2009 "hard landing":

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.time.com...

...never happened. I'll give Krugman credit he didn't call it then, but the bottom line is that any talk about China from the US will be heavily propagandistic, and will typically appeal to the chronically ignorant.

Doesn't require a refutation, if you had actually read my position.

I read your position, and re-assert my opinion of it. It's simply wrong; it's been wrong historically ever since the KMT lost the mainland, it's been wrong in nearly every single instance throughout the last 60+ years, and it is more than likely wrong now. Just because Krugman and GS express a forward-looking opinion on it doesn't make their opinion correct.

I find it interesting that people like you continually think that others aren't reading what you write, when the real problem is that others' opinions are simply different from yours, and you refuse to recognize any views different than your own.

You don't even bother to discuss, argue, refute, or agree. It's a sign of either a poor argument, or poor argumentation.

One day, naysayers like yourself will be correct on this one. After all, a broken clock is wrong twice a day. Personally, I'd just get a new clock.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 11:57:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyway, jimtimmy's opinion is much closer to the mark. If China and US converge on GDP, then China's per capita GDP will only be 1/4 that of America. From that point they would still have a lot of catching up to do, even though at that point they will have become the largest economy in the world.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 12:34:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 10:57:56 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Last week, The New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-recipient Paul Krugman wrote an article called "Hitting China's Wall." "The signs are now unmistakable: China is in big trouble. We're not talking about some minor setback along the way, but something more fundamental. The country's whole way of doing business, the economic system that has driven three decades of incredible growth, has reached its limits. You could say that the Chinese model is about to hit its Great Wall, and the only question now is just how bad the crash will be."

Later, Ben Levisohn wrote another column called "Smoke Signals from China." "In the classic disaster flick 'The Towering Inferno' partygoers ignored a fire in a storage room because they assumed it has been contained. Are investors making the same mistake with China?" He goes on to answer his question, saying, "Unlike three months ago, when investors were placing big bets that China's policymakers would pump cash into the economy to spur growth, the markets seem to have accepted the fact that sluggish growth for the world's second largest economy is its new normal."

Meanwhile, even Goldman Sachs (the ones who predicted that China's economy might pass the US's by 2030, has hopped on the bandwagon, cutting its forecast of Chinese growth to 7.4 percent.

Every one of us who has predicted an economic meltdown and political collapse of China in contrast to the pseudo-analysts that predicted a "redistribution of global power" have been utterly vindicated. Our fringe views are now conventional wisdom. China will not be the world power. It will not even be the economic power. China is finished. Everyone is admitting it. We have won. The stupid hordes duped themselves once again, but by the time they suck on to Turkey or Japan as the new new world power, they'll have forgotten everything that made them so wrong. For those of us who understand basic principles of economics, it's a constant uphill struggle.

Everyone has known that China is hugely inefficient. They requires something like 9% growth to just supply enough jobs for their expanding workforce. Heck, the simple fact that they have a huge black market finance industry, signals they don't have markets that can efficiently grow.

A lot of money has flowed from Europe, US, & Japan to the Chinese as they could pump out products on the cheap like nobody's business.

Krugeman's position, as a demand guy, is that China invested too much money and did not work hard enough spurring domestic spending. Unlocking the Chinese as spenders has been on the docket for a couple decades. There are a lot of companies that have expanded to China in the last two decades to get a piece of that theoretical pie.

From a supply side for the rest of the world any decline in China puts labor back to where it was when the worlds supply chains began moving to China for cheap products. Deflation might not be good for China, but as the worlds factory it actually could be good for the rest of the world.

I would be very skeptical though at proclaiming that they can not get through a deflationary period and that it is going to bring forth a downfall to the regime in a Soviet style changing of the guard.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 6:31:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 12:34:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2013 10:57:56 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Last week, The New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-recipient Paul Krugman wrote an article called "Hitting China's Wall." "The signs are now unmistakable: China is in big trouble. We're not talking about some minor setback along the way, but something more fundamental. The country's whole way of doing business, the economic system that has driven three decades of incredible growth, has reached its limits. You could say that the Chinese model is about to hit its Great Wall, and the only question now is just how bad the crash will be."

Later, Ben Levisohn wrote another column called "Smoke Signals from China." "In the classic disaster flick 'The Towering Inferno' partygoers ignored a fire in a storage room because they assumed it has been contained. Are investors making the same mistake with China?" He goes on to answer his question, saying, "Unlike three months ago, when investors were placing big bets that China's policymakers would pump cash into the economy to spur growth, the markets seem to have accepted the fact that sluggish growth for the world's second largest economy is its new normal."

Meanwhile, even Goldman Sachs (the ones who predicted that China's economy might pass the US's by 2030, has hopped on the bandwagon, cutting its forecast of Chinese growth to 7.4 percent.

Every one of us who has predicted an economic meltdown and political collapse of China in contrast to the pseudo-analysts that predicted a "redistribution of global power" have been utterly vindicated. Our fringe views are now conventional wisdom. China will not be the world power. It will not even be the economic power. China is finished. Everyone is admitting it. We have won. The stupid hordes duped themselves once again, but by the time they suck on to Turkey or Japan as the new new world power, they'll have forgotten everything that made them so wrong. For those of us who understand basic principles of economics, it's a constant uphill struggle.

Everyone has known that China is hugely inefficient. They requires something like 9% growth to just supply enough jobs for their expanding workforce. Heck, the simple fact that they have a huge black market finance industry, signals they don't have markets that can efficiently grow.

A lot of money has flowed from Europe, US, & Japan to the Chinese as they could pump out products on the cheap like nobody's business.

The underlined point to a contradiction. If a business can produce a product cheaper than its competition, it is because that business is more efficient.

They have low productivity per capita because their productive capacity is slowly getting mechanized. Efficient though? Very much so. Productivity is low but costs are even lower.

I would be very skeptical though at proclaiming that they can not get through a deflationary period and that it is going to bring forth a downfall to the regime in a Soviet style changing of the guard.

Agree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 12:32:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 6:31:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/26/2013 12:34:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2013 10:57:56 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Last week, The New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-recipient Paul Krugman wrote an article called "Hitting China's Wall." "The signs are now unmistakable: China is in big trouble. We're not talking about some minor setback along the way, but something more fundamental. The country's whole way of doing business, the economic system that has driven three decades of incredible growth, has reached its limits. You could say that the Chinese model is about to hit its Great Wall, and the only question now is just how bad the crash will be."

Later, Ben Levisohn wrote another column called "Smoke Signals from China." "In the classic disaster flick 'The Towering Inferno' partygoers ignored a fire in a storage room because they assumed it has been contained. Are investors making the same mistake with China?" He goes on to answer his question, saying, "Unlike three months ago, when investors were placing big bets that China's policymakers would pump cash into the economy to spur growth, the markets seem to have accepted the fact that sluggish growth for the world's second largest economy is its new normal."

Meanwhile, even Goldman Sachs (the ones who predicted that China's economy might pass the US's by 2030, has hopped on the bandwagon, cutting its forecast of Chinese growth to 7.4 percent.

Every one of us who has predicted an economic meltdown and political collapse of China in contrast to the pseudo-analysts that predicted a "redistribution of global power" have been utterly vindicated. Our fringe views are now conventional wisdom. China will not be the world power. It will not even be the economic power. China is finished. Everyone is admitting it. We have won. The stupid hordes duped themselves once again, but by the time they suck on to Turkey or Japan as the new new world power, they'll have forgotten everything that made them so wrong. For those of us who understand basic principles of economics, it's a constant uphill struggle.

Everyone has known that China is hugely inefficient. They requires something like 9% growth to just supply enough jobs for their expanding workforce. Heck, the simple fact that they have a huge black market finance industry, signals they don't have markets that can efficiently grow.

A lot of money has flowed from Europe, US, & Japan to the Chinese as they could pump out products on the cheap like nobody's business.

The underlined point to a contradiction. If a business can produce a product cheaper than its competition, it is because that business is more efficient.

Not true. The lower cost of labor and commodities can often hide greater inefficiency. Also in this case, suppliers for the west end up being micromanaged via their customers, which helps with efficiency. Ultimately you are right there is a contradiction, but the contradiction is one that exist within the Chinese system.

The difference is between big business that is gov sanctioned and can supply the west and small & medium business that serves the chinese and often has to rely on black markets for obtaining financing, materials or even selling their products.

They have low productivity per capita because their productive capacity is slowly getting mechanized. Efficient though? Very much so. Productivity is low but costs are even lower.

I would be very skeptical though at proclaiming that they can not get through a deflationary period and that it is going to bring forth a downfall to the regime in a Soviet style changing of the guard.

Agree.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 12:57:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 12:32:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/26/2013 6:31:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Everyone has known that China is hugely inefficient.

A lot of money has flowed from Europe, US, & Japan to the Chinese as they could pump out products on the cheap like nobody's business.

The underlined point to a contradiction. If a business can produce a product cheaper than its competition, it is because that business is more efficient.

Not true. The lower cost of labor and commodities can often hide greater inefficiency. Also in this case, suppliers for the west end up being micromanaged via their customers, which helps with efficiency. Ultimately you are right there is a contradiction, but the contradiction is one that exist within the Chinese system.

The difference is between big business that is gov sanctioned and can supply the west and small & medium business that serves the chinese and often has to rely on black markets for obtaining financing, materials or even selling their products.

I recognize your point here, but the difference still leads to pronounced pareto-optimal economic growth.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 1:00:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 12:57:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/27/2013 12:32:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/26/2013 6:31:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Everyone has known that China is hugely inefficient.

A lot of money has flowed from Europe, US, & Japan to the Chinese as they could pump out products on the cheap like nobody's business.

The underlined point to a contradiction. If a business can produce a product cheaper than its competition, it is because that business is more efficient.

Not true. The lower cost of labor and commodities can often hide greater inefficiency.

We are talking past each other here. Efficiency can be measured in various ways. I am looking mainly at productivity minus costs. You seem to be looking at productivity per unit of time.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:20:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 2:26:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
China's 2009 "hard landing":

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.time.com...

...never happened. I'll give Krugman credit he didn't call it then, but the bottom line is that any talk about China from the US will be heavily propagandistic, and will typically appeal to the chronically ignorant.

No, the propagandist opinion on China will label it the next world power and rant about whoever they're blaming for it. That's how these things go. Pundits aren't going to reassure people about their own security and prosperity, they're going to say that we are entering the Apocalypse, and that our civilization is in the grip of a terrible malaise. Yeah, after the insane "projection" accusation you made for some reason that can only be known to you in the debate with me I'm really not in the mood for your psychoanalysis.

I looked at the articles, and they seem fairly uncontroversial to me. My entire point is that China has been artificially extending its growth for political purposes and isn't making the painful adjustments that economy needs to create real wealth. Yes, the recession hit China hard. But the communist party needed to boost growth however they could in order to remain in power, because, as your own article kindly points out, the people don't take kindly to unemployment and stagnation. No, it's not a coincidence that they kept on growing and growing at an insane pace right through the recession. That show was for the Chinese worker. The massive growth of the Chinese economy fit both scenarios, and my predictions have won out.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:25:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 11:54:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/25/2013 7:20:43 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 2:26:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
China's 2009 "hard landing":

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.time.com...

...never happened. I'll give Krugman credit he didn't call it then, but the bottom line is that any talk about China from the US will be heavily propagandistic, and will typically appeal to the chronically ignorant.

Doesn't require a refutation, if you had actually read my position.

I read your position, and re-assert my opinion of it. It's simply wrong; it's been wrong historically ever since the KMT lost the mainland, it's been wrong in nearly every single instance throughout the last 60+ years, and it is more than likely wrong now. Just because Krugman and GS express a forward-looking opinion on it doesn't make their opinion correct.

First of all, I have pointed out in the past that China is extremely centralized and that privatizing was the biggest cause of instability in the country historically. There always was tension between the rich coast and the rural inland every time China opened itself to trade. My scenario, again, fits historical trend much more easily than yours does.

I'm not using Krugman or GS as prophets, I'm simply demonstrating that conventional wisdom has shifted.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:32:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 12:34:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2013 10:57:56 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Last week, The New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-recipient Paul Krugman wrote an article called "Hitting China's Wall." "The signs are now unmistakable: China is in big trouble. We're not talking about some minor setback along the way, but something more fundamental. The country's whole way of doing business, the economic system that has driven three decades of incredible growth, has reached its limits. You could say that the Chinese model is about to hit its Great Wall, and the only question now is just how bad the crash will be."

Later, Ben Levisohn wrote another column called "Smoke Signals from China." "In the classic disaster flick 'The Towering Inferno' partygoers ignored a fire in a storage room because they assumed it has been contained. Are investors making the same mistake with China?" He goes on to answer his question, saying, "Unlike three months ago, when investors were placing big bets that China's policymakers would pump cash into the economy to spur growth, the markets seem to have accepted the fact that sluggish growth for the world's second largest economy is its new normal."

Meanwhile, even Goldman Sachs (the ones who predicted that China's economy might pass the US's by 2030, has hopped on the bandwagon, cutting its forecast of Chinese growth to 7.4 percent.

Every one of us who has predicted an economic meltdown and political collapse of China in contrast to the pseudo-analysts that predicted a "redistribution of global power" have been utterly vindicated. Our fringe views are now conventional wisdom. China will not be the world power. It will not even be the economic power. China is finished. Everyone is admitting it. We have won. The stupid hordes duped themselves once again, but by the time they suck on to Turkey or Japan as the new new world power, they'll have forgotten everything that made them so wrong. For those of us who understand basic principles of economics, it's a constant uphill struggle.

Everyone has known that China is hugely inefficient. They requires something like 9% growth to just supply enough jobs for their expanding workforce. Heck, the simple fact that they have a huge black market finance industry, signals they don't have markets that can efficiently grow.

A lot of money has flowed from Europe, US, & Japan to the Chinese as they could pump out products on the cheap like nobody's business.

Krugeman's position, as a demand guy, is that China invested too much money and did not work hard enough spurring domestic spending.

Yeah, why do you think that is? The government needs to be able to provide the population with jobs. That's why they artificially inflate growth to such an extreme degree. Economics is always interrelated with politics.

From a supply side for the rest of the world any decline in China puts labor back to where it was when the worlds supply chains began moving to China for cheap products. Deflation might not be good for China, but as the worlds factory it actually could be good for the rest of the world.

I would be very skeptical though at proclaiming that they can not get through a deflationary period and that it is going to bring forth a downfall to the regime in a Soviet style changing of the guard.

Yeah, well it almost happened in 1889. I think that there is a chance that they can hold off the inevitable for a time (maybe a decade), but what happens when the bubble bursts?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:56:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 12:25:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:54:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/25/2013 7:20:43 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 2:26:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
China's 2009 "hard landing":

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.time.com...

...never happened. I'll give Krugman credit he didn't call it then, but the bottom line is that any talk about China from the US will be heavily propagandistic, and will typically appeal to the chronically ignorant.

Doesn't require a refutation, if you had actually read my position.

I read your position, and re-assert my opinion of it. It's simply wrong; it's been wrong historically ever since the KMT lost the mainland, it's been wrong in nearly every single instance throughout the last 60+ years, and it is more than likely wrong now. Just because Krugman and GS express a forward-looking opinion on it doesn't make their opinion correct.

First of all, I have pointed out in the past that China is extremely centralized and that privatizing was the biggest cause of instability in the country historically. There always was tension between the rich coast and the rural inland every time China opened itself to trade. My scenario, again, fits historical trend much more easily than yours does.

I do not know of your past assertions, but I can say that you're largely mistaken about China having an extremely centralized past. China's past actually closely resembles a conservative's dream of a high degree of localized autonomy. The only reason we think otherwise is because we have been indoctrinated with seeing commie red every time we think of China, and thus gravitate to some mistaken notion that this recent history is somehow representative of China's entire history.

Mao represented a break from this history because he focused his aggression upon the landed gentry - he advocated an extreme centralized authority while purging the society of its historical power-brokers.

On the underlined, China has always been open to trade, except under the brief beginning years of the communist regime. Not sure what you are referring to here, but it seems to point to a grossly mistaken view of world history.

I'm not using Krugman or GS as prophets, I'm simply demonstrating that conventional wisdom has shifted.

Again, conventional wisdom hasn't shifted. People have been predicting the demise of the CCP ever since Mao took over the country. A broken clock is right twice a day. There's a chance Krugman is right, but not much of one.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:58:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 12:35:55 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Relevant article: http://www.dallasfed.org...

This is no different from the typical news you hear on China. It is not specific to any particular time, except that it coincides with the rise of the CCP.

If you're going to continue to cite articles like this, I will save you the time and simply say that you will be able to cite terabytes of data asserting the same, and that such assertions have been ongoing for the past 60 years. Most of those assertions have been wrong.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 1:07:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just to give you a perspective, in one of my classes, we learned that one of the reasons attributed to the fall of the Ming dynasty (early 1600s) was due to uncontrollable inflation stemming from fluctuations in the silver trade...New World silver trade.

China has almost always been open to trade. That you think otherwise is because you have a myopic view of world history, and think the developments during 1950-1976 are archetypal of China's multi-millennial history. All they are archetypal of is your lack of breadth in this topic.

If you are truly interested in this subject, I strongly suggest you gain a more accurate historical perspective on this matter.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 1:21:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 12:20:35 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 2:26:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
China's 2009 "hard landing":

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.time.com...

...never happened. I'll give Krugman credit he didn't call it then, but the bottom line is that any talk about China from the US will be heavily propagandistic, and will typically appeal to the chronically ignorant.

No, the propagandist opinion on China will label it the next world power and rant about whoever they're blaming for it. That's how these things go. Pundits aren't going to reassure people about their own security and prosperity, they're going to say that we are entering the Apocalypse, and that our civilization is in the grip of a terrible malaise. Yeah, after the insane "projection" accusation you made for some reason that can only be known to you in the debate with me I'm really not in the mood for your psychoanalysis.

I find it interesting that your entire rebuttal is simply propaganda. There is no basis to talk about "the next world power" or "entering the Apocalypse". You're guilty of your own charge here.

About the debate, the debate was not about China taking over the US's place in the world. It was about challenging the US's place in the world. That you are getting so rankled over it is evidence (in this rather insignificant case) of how this challenge is occurring.

Nothing you've said here nor in the articles you sourced derails the prediction that China will overtake the US GDP-wise by 2030. No one is making that assertion, except you.

I looked at the articles, and they seem fairly uncontroversial to me. My entire point is that China has been artificially extending its growth for political purposes and isn't making the painful adjustments that economy needs to create real wealth. Yes, the recession hit China hard. But the communist party needed to boost growth however they could in order to remain in power, because, as your own article kindly points out, the people don't take kindly to unemployment and stagnation. No, it's not a coincidence that they kept on growing and growing at an insane pace right through the recession. That show was for the Chinese worker. The massive growth of the Chinese economy fit both scenarios, and my predictions have won out.

No one anywhere would "take kindly to unemployment and stagnation". What do you think we've been doing with Fannie and Freddie? QE infinity? TARP, TALF, etc? Again, this is 100% projection on your part. If you think China is going to fall apart because they are taking artificial measures to stimulate the economy, then you must think the same about America. I mean, we easily have "been artificially extending [our] growth for political purposes and [are]n't making the painful adjustments that economy needs to create real wealth." China is no different.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 1:24:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lastly, I find it rather hypocritical on your part that you instigated that debate with me ostensibly to learn from me, and then continually demonstrate an utter lack of desire to actually learn. What is your agenda, anyway?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 7:57:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 12:56:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/28/2013 12:25:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:54:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/25/2013 7:20:43 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 2:26:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
China's 2009 "hard landing":

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.time.com...

...never happened. I'll give Krugman credit he didn't call it then, but the bottom line is that any talk about China from the US will be heavily propagandistic, and will typically appeal to the chronically ignorant.

Doesn't require a refutation, if you had actually read my position.

I read your position, and re-assert my opinion of it. It's simply wrong; it's been wrong historically ever since the KMT lost the mainland, it's been wrong in nearly every single instance throughout the last 60+ years, and it is more than likely wrong now. Just because Krugman and GS express a forward-looking opinion on it doesn't make their opinion correct.

First of all, I have pointed out in the past that China is extremely centralized and that privatizing was the biggest cause of instability in the country historically. There always was tension between the rich coast and the rural inland every time China opened itself to trade. My scenario, again, fits historical trend much more easily than yours does.

I do not know of your past assertions, but I can say that you're largely mistaken about China having an extremely centralized past. China's past actually closely resembles a conservative's dream of a high degree of localized autonomy. The only reason we think otherwise is because we have been indoctrinated with seeing commie red every time we think of China, and thus gravitate to some mistaken notion that this recent history is somehow representative of China's entire history.

Mao represented a break from this history because he focused his aggression upon the landed gentry - he advocated an extreme centralized authority while purging the society of its historical power-brokers.

On the underlined, China has always been open to trade, except under the brief beginning years of the communist regime. Not sure what you are referring to here, but it seems to point to a grossly mistaken view of world history.

I am not going to respond to you if you continue accusing me of psychological projection or thinking under Western stereotypes. I don't understand how you don't see how offensive it is, but I hope you don't discuss politics with your friends.

You are, once again, completely strawmanning me when you say that I think China has "always" been centralized. It goes through historical transitions. China becomes bureaucratized under a strong central government which accumulates monopolies and restricts trade for political purposes. Eventually it relaxes and opens itself to outside trade. The coast is always the richer portion; when China decentralizes and becomes freer this results in instability.

I'm not using Krugman or GS as prophets, I'm simply demonstrating that conventional wisdom has shifted.

Again, conventional wisdom hasn't shifted. People have been predicting the demise of the CCP ever since Mao took over the country. A broken clock is right twice a day. There's a chance Krugman is right, but not much of one.

Again, wonderful strawman. Krugman is not predicting the demise of the country, he is saying that they're headed for a permanent wall. I infer that China will become unstable because of it and might collapse Soviet style.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 8:15:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 12:58:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/28/2013 12:35:55 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Relevant article: http://www.dallasfed.org...

This is no different from the typical news you hear on China. It is not specific to any particular time, except that it coincides with the rise of the CCP.

If you're going to continue to cite articles like this, I will save you the time and simply say that you will be able to cite terabytes of data asserting the same, and that such assertions have been ongoing for the past 60 years. Most of those assertions have been wrong.

You are, and I use this term in all brevity, an idiot. Your argument is similar to saying that since no nukes have ever been used since WWII, there isn't any risk of them being used today. I forgot what the fallacy was called specifically, but I have very little tolerance for it.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 8:18:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 1:07:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Just to give you a perspective, in one of my classes, we learned that one of the reasons attributed to the fall of the Ming dynasty (early 1600s) was due to uncontrollable inflation stemming from fluctuations in the silver trade...New World silver trade.

Seems pretty consistent with my assessment, actually, Mr. Strawman.

China has almost always been open to trade. That you think otherwise is because you have a myopic view of world history, and think the developments during 1950-1976 are archetypal of China's multi-millennial history. All they are archetypal of is your lack of breadth in this topic.

If you are truly interested in this subject, I strongly suggest you gain a more accurate historical perspective on this matter.

Look at this. How do people even argue a point with you? You remind of some guy who chided me for not reading my Chomsky when I told him the US aided both sides in the Iran-Iraq war in order to keep the pot boiling without letting any side win.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 8:23:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 1:21:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/28/2013 12:20:35 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 2:26:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
China's 2009 "hard landing":

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.time.com...

...never happened. I'll give Krugman credit he didn't call it then, but the bottom line is that any talk about China from the US will be heavily propagandistic, and will typically appeal to the chronically ignorant.

No, the propagandist opinion on China will label it the next world power and rant about whoever they're blaming for it. That's how these things go. Pundits aren't going to reassure people about their own security and prosperity, they're going to say that we are entering the Apocalypse, and that our civilization is in the grip of a terrible malaise. Yeah, after the insane "projection" accusation you made for some reason that can only be known to you in the debate with me I'm really not in the mood for your psychoanalysis.

I find it interesting that your entire rebuttal is simply propaganda. There is no basis to talk about "the next world power" or "entering the Apocalypse". You're guilty of your own charge here.

I was actually referring to the Glenn Beck style scaremongers, if in your wisdom you recall that that is precisely what we were talking about.

About the debate, the debate was not about China taking over the US's place in the world. It was about challenging the US's place in the world. That you are getting so rankled over it is evidence (in this rather insignificant case) of how this challenge is occurring.

Keep the ad homs flowing.

Nothing you've said here nor in the articles you sourced derails the prediction that China will overtake the US GDP-wise by 2030. No one is making that assertion, except you.

I don't recall making that assertion, actually.

I looked at the articles, and they seem fairly uncontroversial to me. My entire point is that China has been artificially extending its growth for political purposes and isn't making the painful adjustments that economy needs to create real wealth. Yes, the recession hit China hard. But the communist party needed to boost growth however they could in order to remain in power, because, as your own article kindly points out, the people don't take kindly to unemployment and stagnation. No, it's not a coincidence that they kept on growing and growing at an insane pace right through the recession. That show was for the Chinese worker. The massive growth of the Chinese economy fit both scenarios, and my predictions have won out.

No one anywhere would "take kindly to unemployment and stagnation". What do you think we've been doing with Fannie and Freddie? QE infinity? TARP, TALF, etc? Again, this is 100% projection on your part. If you think China is going to fall apart because they are taking artificial measures to stimulate the economy, then you must think the same about America. I mean, we easily have "been artificially extending [our] growth for political purposes and [are]n't making the painful adjustments that economy needs to create real wealth." China is no different.

I'm especially glad that I am not discussing this with you face to face, because I'm fairly confident I would hurt you. This is not an argument. Not every stimulus in the world means that the economy is built on a huge bubble, and not every unemployment crisis means that the government could collapse. I presented evidence in the debate that this was indeed the case, you did not avail yourself to respond.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 8:23:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 1:24:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Lastly, I find it rather hypocritical on your part that you instigated that debate with me ostensibly to learn from me, and then continually demonstrate an utter lack of desire to actually learn. What is your agenda, anyway?

I'm genuinely going to quote this when I need to piss someone off. Loaded question and goodbye.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 2:06:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 7:57:14 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 12:56:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/28/2013 12:25:58 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/25/2013 11:54:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/25/2013 7:20:43 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 2:26:38 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
China's 2009 "hard landing":

http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.time.com...

...never happened. I'll give Krugman credit he didn't call it then, but the bottom line is that any talk about China from the US will be heavily propagandistic, and will typically appeal to the chronically ignorant.

Doesn't require a refutation, if you had actually read my position.

I read your position, and re-assert my opinion of it. It's simply wrong; it's been wrong historically ever since the KMT lost the mainland, it's been wrong in nearly every single instance throughout the last 60+ years, and it is more than likely wrong now. Just because Krugman and GS express a forward-looking opinion on it doesn't make their opinion correct.

First of all, I have pointed out in the past that China is extremely centralized and that privatizing was the biggest cause of instability in the country historically. There always was tension between the rich coast and the rural inland every time China opened itself to trade. My scenario, again, fits historical trend much more easily than yours does.

I do not know of your past assertions, but I can say that you're largely mistaken about China having an extremely centralized past. China's past actually closely resembles a conservative's dream of a high degree of localized autonomy. The only reason we think otherwise is because we have been indoctrinated with seeing commie red every time we think of China, and thus gravitate to some mistaken notion that this recent history is somehow representative of China's entire history.

Mao represented a break from this history because he focused his aggression upon the landed gentry - he advocated an extreme centralized authority while purging the society of its historical power-brokers.

On the underlined, China has always been open to trade, except under the brief beginning years of the communist regime. Not sure what you are referring to here, but it seems to point to a grossly mistaken view of world history.

I am not going to respond to you if you continue accusing me of psychological projection or thinking under Western stereotypes. I don't understand how you don't see how offensive it is, but I hope you don't discuss politics with your friends.

You're going to have to explain how the accusation of projection is offensive.

I typically don't discuss politics. Most people have intractable opinions that cannot be changed no matter how reasonable the argument may be.

You are, once again, completely strawmanning me when you say that I think China has "always" been centralized. It goes through historical transitions. China becomes bureaucratized under a strong central government which accumulates monopolies and restricts trade for political purposes. Eventually it relaxes and opens itself to outside trade. The coast is always the richer portion; when China decentralizes and becomes freer this results in instability.

1) This logic is not at all evident in your original statement: "First of all, I have pointed out in the past that China is extremely centralized..." This statement does not describe any cyclical process. I take this as a retraction from you of your prior statement.

2) Please describe this centralization/decentralization process.

I'm not using Krugman or GS as prophets, I'm simply demonstrating that conventional wisdom has shifted.

Again, conventional wisdom hasn't shifted. People have been predicting the demise of the CCP ever since Mao took over the country. A broken clock is right twice a day. There's a chance Krugman is right, but not much of one.

Again, wonderful strawman. Krugman is not predicting the demise of the country, he is saying that they're headed for a permanent wall. I infer that China will become unstable because of it and might collapse Soviet style.

I'm not strawmanning. My statement is descriptive of exactly what you just laid out. Your inference is more than likely incorrect.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 2:09:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 8:15:48 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/28/2013 12:58:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/28/2013 12:35:55 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
Relevant article: http://www.dallasfed.org...

This is no different from the typical news you hear on China. It is not specific to any particular time, except that it coincides with the rise of the CCP.

If you're going to continue to cite articles like this, I will save you the time and simply say that you will be able to cite terabytes of data asserting the same, and that such assertions have been ongoing for the past 60 years. Most of those assertions have been wrong.

You are, and I use this term in all brevity, an idiot. Your argument is similar to saying that since no nukes have ever been used since WWII, there isn't any risk of them being used today. I forgot what the fallacy was called specifically, but I have very little tolerance for it.

First of all, you're lucky you were being facetious.

Second, your analogy is incorrect. People are predicting an imminent collapse in China. That would be akin to saying that since no nukes have ever been used since WWII, that nuclear warfare is imminent. That would be the more correct analogy, and is also a similarly absurd position to take.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?