Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Is America too dependent on China?

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 1:18:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 10:13:33 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
I just want to know if anyone thinks we are too dependent on China. Thoughts?

Elaborate on "dependency".
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?
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 8:54:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 1:18:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:13:33 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
I just want to know if anyone thinks we are too dependent on China. Thoughts?

Elaborate on "dependency".

Like, I know a lot of people who are scared that China will just stop giving us money if we don't pay it back, or that they could end up owning us, or something along those lines. I just don't know why they think that. They seem scared that we are only keeping our economy intact because they give us money, and that they're looking to take us over. They want to reduce our dependency on them. I just don't understand though. Because...
1. They can't call back their debt
2. It's better for them to keep buying
3. They only own 8% of our debt (or around there)
4. For every dollar we owe to all foreign countries, foreign countries owe us 89 cents (again, somewhere in that ballpark)
5. If America stopped buying China's products their economy would plummet faster that a rock dropped from the empire state.

I just don't know what their scared of.
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 8:55:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 8:54:55 PM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/13/2013 1:18:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:13:33 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
I just want to know if anyone thinks we are too dependent on China. Thoughts?

Elaborate on "dependency".

Like, I know a lot of people who are scared that China will just stop giving us money if we don't pay it back, or that they could end up owning us, or something along those lines. I just don't know why they think that. They seem scared that we are only keeping our economy intact because they give us money, and that they're looking to take us over. They want to reduce our dependency on them. I just don't understand though. Because...
1. They can't call back their debt
2. It's better for them to keep buying
3. They only own 8% of our debt (or around there)
4. For every dollar we owe to all foreign countries, foreign countries owe us 89 cents (again, somewhere in that ballpark)
5. If America stopped buying China's products their economy would plummet faster that a rock dropped from the empire state.

I just don't know what they're scared of.

fixed
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 12:38:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well.. We have so many networks for trade... If we lose China, that's okay. China, however, loses most it's trade (it'll lose both the US and Europe.)

People are scared of China, and that is China's greatest weakness, because most nations buying from them will side with the US in any major conflict.

Anything we lose from China can be made up for in Europe and America. China will have a hard time finding good connections like ours because the only people that like them are the third world nations around them. Even Russia hates China.

While a slippery slope, with the current relations and politics, most of the slopes we can fall down is in the US's favor.

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

China can not call on their debt.

They also owe us 1,000,000,000,000+.

China is becoming more independent, but in the field of politics, they simply do not outdo the US.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 4:17:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 8:54:55 PM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/13/2013 1:18:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:13:33 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
I just want to know if anyone thinks we are too dependent on China. Thoughts?

Elaborate on "dependency".

Hmm..

Like, I know a lot of people who are scared that China will just stop giving us money if we don't pay it back,

We will pay it back. We own the printing presses, so if need be we will print whatever money we pay back.

or that they could end up owning us, or something along those lines.

This is occurring as we speak, IMHO.

I just don't know why they think that. They seem scared that we are only keeping our economy intact because they give us money, and that they're looking to take us over. They want to reduce our dependency on them. I just don't understand though. Because...
1. They can't call back their debt

Don't understand what this means. They can just sell the debt on the marketplace.

2. It's better for them to keep buying

Keep buying what? US debt? And this is supposed to be good for the US?

3. They only own 8% of our debt (or around there)

Sounds right.

4. For every dollar we owe to all foreign countries, foreign countries owe us 89 cents (again, somewhere in that ballpark)

Irrelevant to China/US financial relations.

5. If America stopped buying China's products their economy would plummet faster that a rock dropped from the empire state.

This is erroneous on several levels. China is the world's factory courtesy of cheap labor and good logistics. America doesn't stop "buying China's products" because what China is manufacturing is American products, like iphones and ipads.

Furthermore, if America stopped sending manufacturing orders to China, then corporations in other countries would fill the gap, produce at a lower cost, and run American corporations out of business...which is why we are there in the first place.

I just don't know what their scared of.

Hmm.
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?
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 7:30:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 4:17:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 8:54:55 PM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/13/2013 1:18:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:13:33 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
I just want to know if anyone thinks we are too dependent on China. Thoughts?

Elaborate on "dependency".

Hmm..

Like, I know a lot of people who are scared that China will just stop giving us money if we don't pay it back,

We will pay it back. We own the printing presses, so if need be we will print whatever money we pay back.

or that they could end up owning us, or something along those lines.

This is occurring as we speak, IMHO.

I just don't know why they think that. They seem scared that we are only keeping our economy intact because they give us money, and that they're looking to take us over. They want to reduce our dependency on them. I just don't understand though. Because...
1. They can't call back their debt

Don't understand what this means. They can just sell the debt on the marketplace.

Probably should've elaborated on this. China buys treasury bonds, which means that they can't call back the debt they've bought, only collect interest, and the U.S. government will pay them back eventually. I meant that toward some people who think that China can call back the debt, like if banks loan me money for a house and I can't pay them back then they foreclose upon my house. I was trying to point out China can't do that.

2. It's better for them to keep buying

Keep buying what? US debt? And this is supposed to be good for the US?

It's certainly an incentive to keep us going because it is useful for them. And since they buy our debt we can keep the economy afloat until it grows again. Then we can pay them back.

3. They only own 8% of our debt (or around there)

Sounds right.

4. For every dollar we owe to all foreign countries, foreign countries owe us 89 cents (again, somewhere in that ballpark)

Irrelevant to China/US financial relations.

Relevant if this means that the U.S. owns almost enough debt to cut 90% of our foreign debt. Which is a higher percentage than what China owns of our debt.
5. If America stopped buying China's products their economy would plummet faster that a rock dropped from the empire state.

This is erroneous on several levels. China is the world's factory courtesy of cheap labor and good logistics. America doesn't stop "buying China's products" because what China is manufacturing is American products, like iphones and ipads.

I was more along the lines of saying that if China could call back their debt and send us into a so called economic spiral of ruin, then they would really be killing themselves because there is no doubt that America is their largest consumers.
Furthermore, if America stopped sending manufacturing orders to China, then corporations in other countries would fill the gap, produce at a lower cost, and run American corporations out of business...which is why we are there in the first place.

I think you are saying that if American corporations weren't in China then European ones would be and would take over the market. I agree with you, but I think I covered what I meant before with number 5.
I just don't know what their scared of.

Hmm.
You remember during election time there were commercials about how we are so dependent on China, and they could just own us one day? I just don't understand their reasoning because of the things I just pointed out.
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:36:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 12:38:30 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Well.. We have so many networks for trade... If we lose China, that's okay. China, however, loses most it's trade (it'll lose both the US and Europe.)

People are scared of China, and that is China's greatest weakness, because most nations buying from them will side with the US in any major conflict.

Anything we lose from China can be made up for in Europe and America. China will have a hard time finding good connections like ours because the only people that like them are the third world nations around them. Even Russia hates China.

While a slippery slope, with the current relations and politics, most of the slopes we can fall down is in the US's favor.

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

China can not call on their debt.

They also owe us 1,000,000,000,000+.

What?! I never knew that. Where did you find that?

China is becoming more independent, but in the field of politics, they simply do not outdo the US.

I agree with this, but are you serious about them owing us 1 trillion dollars? That's insane.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:48:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 8:36:50 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:38:30 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Well.. We have so many networks for trade... If we lose China, that's okay. China, however, loses most it's trade (it'll lose both the US and Europe.)

People are scared of China, and that is China's greatest weakness, because most nations buying from them will side with the US in any major conflict.

Anything we lose from China can be made up for in Europe and America. China will have a hard time finding good connections like ours because the only people that like them are the third world nations around them. Even Russia hates China.

While a slippery slope, with the current relations and politics, most of the slopes we can fall down is in the US's favor.

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

China can not call on their debt.

They also owe us 1,000,000,000,000+.

What?! I never knew that. Where did you find that?

China is becoming more independent, but in the field of politics, they simply do not outdo the US.

I agree with this, but are you serious about them owing us 1 trillion dollars? That's insane.

Ya. China owes us a lot.
After some further research, it's almost at $1 trillion.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 10:08:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 7:30:12 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/14/2013 4:17:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

1. They can't call back their debt

Don't understand what this means. They can just sell the debt on the marketplace.

Probably should've elaborated on this. China buys treasury bonds, which means that they can't call back the debt they've bought, only collect interest, and the U.S. government will pay them back eventually. I meant that toward some people who think that China can call back the debt, like if banks loan me money for a house and I can't pay them back then they foreclose upon my house. I was trying to point out China can't do that.

Regarding foreclosure, the answer is yes, they can do that. It's like all forms of debt. They would call in their sheriff to evict us from relevant assets. At that point, the squatters (the US in this case) would either have to acquiesce to the sheriff's demands, or fight back. This is kind of the problem with the international realm, the sheriff is extremely weak, and anarchy reigns supreme.

This is also where your point about it being such a small part of our total debt becomes relevant.

Regardless, If the Chinese are unsatisfied with holding US debt, they have other recourse besides foreclosure, and can sell it on the marketplace, one dominated by firms like PIMCO. That's actually the biggest threat, because if they do dump their holdings, then interest payments for US debt will soar, which will force us to print more money to compensate. In the end, it's probably not that big a threat, but it's possible they can time their sales to make the biggest negative impact on our economy for whatever reason.

2. It's better for them to keep buying

Keep buying what? US debt? And this is supposed to be good for the US?

It's certainly an incentive to keep us going because it is useful for them. And since they buy our debt we can keep the economy afloat until it grows again. Then we can pay them back.

It's not useful for them if we pay them back in diluted dollars. If we print so massively that one dollar today is worth 1/10 its original value after printing, then the Chinese are screwed, as are all other debtholders. In fact, I would argue that is exactly what we are currently doing vie QE infinity, and I would argue that entitlement programs (by far the largest holders of government debt) are going to get royally screwed in the future.

4. For every dollar we owe to all foreign countries, foreign countries owe us 89 cents (again, somewhere in that ballpark)

Irrelevant to China/US financial relations.

Relevant if this means that the U.S. owns almost enough debt to cut 90% of our foreign debt. Which is a higher percentage than what China owns of our debt.

Ok, fair enough, although we would have the exact same problems with calling in our debt that China would have calling in their debt. We have no control over other countries' printing presses, only our own.

5. If America stopped buying China's products their economy would plummet faster that a rock dropped from the empire state.

This is erroneous on several levels. China is the world's factory courtesy of cheap labor and good logistics. America doesn't stop "buying China's products" because what China is manufacturing is American products, like iphones and ipads.

I was more along the lines of saying that if China could call back their debt and send us into a so called economic spiral of ruin, then they would really be killing themselves because there is no doubt that America is their largest consumers.

Ok, first of all, the "call back debt" scenario would only occur if we miss an interest payment. That's more than likely never going to happen.

Second, if we are such an economic basket case to have to miss an interest payment else we run out of money, then it will be because we have already spiraled into ruin economically. This will also never happen, because we will always have money to make interest payments courtesy of our printing press.

Furthermore, if America stopped sending manufacturing orders to China, then corporations in other countries would fill the gap, produce at a lower cost, and run American corporations out of business...which is why we are there in the first place.

I think you are saying that if American corporations weren't in China then European ones would be and would take over the market. I agree with you, but I think I covered what I meant before with number 5.
I just don't know what their scared of.

Hmm.
You remember during election time there were commercials about how we are so dependent on China, and they could just own us one day? I just don't understand their reasoning because of the things I just pointed out.

I don't have a television, lol. =)

Regardless, I know Romney was harping on that during the 2012 election, and IMHO he's right. Trump was also on this in regards to the Iraq War, how we went in and fvcked the country up only to see all of the oil getting shipped to China.

http://www.politico.com...

Second of all, they are buying, no question:

http://adage.com...
http://abcnews.go.com...

Third, land in Asia is ridiculously expensive. I live in California, and I know that several pockets of California, one of the states hardest hit by the housing bust, were simply not affected AT ALL by declining home prices. Those neighborhoods were not San Francisco or San Diego, but rather suburbs dominated by Asian immigrants.

http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com...
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?
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 10:09:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 8:48:42 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:36:50 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:38:30 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Well.. We have so many networks for trade... If we lose China, that's okay. China, however, loses most it's trade (it'll lose both the US and Europe.)

People are scared of China, and that is China's greatest weakness, because most nations buying from them will side with the US in any major conflict.

Anything we lose from China can be made up for in Europe and America. China will have a hard time finding good connections like ours because the only people that like them are the third world nations around them. Even Russia hates China.

While a slippery slope, with the current relations and politics, most of the slopes we can fall down is in the US's favor.

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

China can not call on their debt.

They also owe us 1,000,000,000,000+.

What?! I never knew that. Where did you find that?

China is becoming more independent, but in the field of politics, they simply do not outdo the US.

I agree with this, but are you serious about them owing us 1 trillion dollars? That's insane.

Ya. China owes us a lot.
After some further research, it's almost at $1 trillion.

Wow, that's crazy. Thanks for the info :)
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 10:43:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 10:08:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/14/2013 7:30:12 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/14/2013 4:17:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

1. They can't call back their debt

Don't understand what this means. They can just sell the debt on the marketplace.

Probably should've elaborated on this. China buys treasury bonds, which means that they can't call back the debt they've bought, only collect interest, and the U.S. government will pay them back eventually. I meant that toward some people who think that China can call back the debt, like if banks loan me money for a house and I can't pay them back then they foreclose upon my house. I was trying to point out China can't do that.

Regarding foreclosure, the answer is yes, they can do that. It's like all forms of debt. They would call in their sheriff to evict us from relevant assets. At that point, the squatters (the US in this case) would either have to acquiesce to the sheriff's demands, or fight back. This is kind of the problem with the international realm, the sheriff is extremely weak, and anarchy reigns supreme.

This is also where your point about it being such a small part of our total debt becomes relevant.

Regardless, If the Chinese are unsatisfied with holding US debt, they have other recourse besides foreclosure, and can sell it on the marketplace, one dominated by firms like PIMCO. That's actually the biggest threat, because if they do dump their holdings, then interest payments for US debt will soar, which will force us to print more money to compensate. In the end, it's probably not that big a threat, but it's possible they can time their sales to make the biggest negative impact on our economy for whatever reason.

2. It's better for them to keep buying

Keep buying what? US debt? And this is supposed to be good for the US?

It's certainly an incentive to keep us going because it is useful for them. And since they buy our debt we can keep the economy afloat until it grows again. Then we can pay them back.

It's not useful for them if we pay them back in diluted dollars. If we print so massively that one dollar today is worth 1/10 its original value after printing, then the Chinese are screwed, as are all other debtholders. In fact, I would argue that is exactly what we are currently doing vie QE infinity, and I would argue that entitlement programs (by far the largest holders of government debt) are going to get royally screwed in the future.

4. For every dollar we owe to all foreign countries, foreign countries owe us 89 cents (again, somewhere in that ballpark)

Irrelevant to China/US financial relations.

Relevant if this means that the U.S. owns almost enough debt to cut 90% of our foreign debt. Which is a higher percentage than what China owns of our debt.

Ok, fair enough, although we would have the exact same problems with calling in our debt that China would have calling in their debt. We have no control over other countries' printing presses, only our own.

5. If America stopped buying China's products their economy would plummet faster that a rock dropped from the empire state.

This is erroneous on several levels. China is the world's factory courtesy of cheap labor and good logistics. America doesn't stop "buying China's products" because what China is manufacturing is American products, like iphones and ipads.

I was more along the lines of saying that if China could call back their debt and send us into a so called economic spiral of ruin, then they would really be killing themselves because there is no doubt that America is their largest consumers.

Ok, first of all, the "call back debt" scenario would only occur if we miss an interest payment. That's more than likely never going to happen.

Second, if we are such an economic basket case to have to miss an interest payment else we run out of money, then it will be because we have already spiraled into ruin economically. This will also never happen, because we will always have money to make interest payments courtesy of our printing press.

Furthermore, if America stopped sending manufacturing orders to China, then corporations in other countries would fill the gap, produce at a lower cost, and run American corporations out of business...which is why we are there in the first place.

I think you are saying that if American corporations weren't in China then European ones would be and would take over the market. I agree with you, but I think I covered what I meant before with number 5.
I just don't know what their scared of.

Hmm.
You remember during election time there were commercials about how we are so dependent on China, and they could just own us one day? I just don't understand their reasoning because of the things I just pointed out.

I don't have a television, lol. =)

Regardless, I know Romney was harping on that during the 2012 election, and IMHO he's right. Trump was also on this in regards to the Iraq War, how we went in and fvcked the country up only to see all of the oil getting shipped to China.

http://www.politico.com...

Second of all, they are buying, no question:

http://adage.com...
http://abcnews.go.com...

Third, land in Asia is ridiculously expensive. I live in California, and I know that several pockets of California, one of the states hardest hit by the housing bust, were simply not affected AT ALL by declining home prices. Those neighborhoods were not San Francisco or San Diego, but rather suburbs dominated by Asian immigrants.

http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com...

I think we agree, just for different reasons. You said that they call back scenario will almost never happen, which is what I'm saying. My scenario was simply to point out that if they did do that then they would be screwed. My whole point is that I'm not sure why people are afraid of China. So I don't think America is too dependent on China, and that we are mutually beneficial to eachother.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 10:47:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Way too dependent. American's are losing jobs to the Chinese because of this dependency. This dependency has lowered the quality of life in AMERICA.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 10:49:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 10:43:46 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/14/2013 10:08:26 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

I think we agree, just for different reasons. You said that they call back scenario will almost never happen, which is what I'm saying. My scenario was simply to point out that if they did do that then they would be screwed. My whole point is that I'm not sure why people are afraid of China. So I don't think America is too dependent on China, and that we are mutually beneficial to eachother.

Yeah, you certainly seem more cognizant than your friends on this matter.

About the call back scenario, that all depends on why the Chinese would attempt a "call back" (which is to demand that the US honor its debts). If they had to go directly to the government, that would mean that the bond-market was non-functional, which would mean there's no market for US debt, and that would probably be due to hyperinflation. I mean, yeah they'd be screwed out of their $1 trillion, but we'd be much more screwed than that.

IMHO the mutually beneficial argument only works up to a certain extent, after which what I coin "neo-mercantilism" becomes much more appropriate. Romney had it right during his campaign, IMHO.
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
8/14/2013 10:51:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I also really do not understand why so many people are so complacent about China buying up US assets. Maybe it just doesn't hit mainstream media too much, but if you read business publications like the wall street journal, bloomberg, or forbes, it's a discernible trend.
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
8/14/2013 11:12:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 10:09:26 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:48:42 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:36:50 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:38:30 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Well.. We have so many networks for trade... If we lose China, that's okay. China, however, loses most it's trade (it'll lose both the US and Europe.)

People are scared of China, and that is China's greatest weakness, because most nations buying from them will side with the US in any major conflict.

Anything we lose from China can be made up for in Europe and America. China will have a hard time finding good connections like ours because the only people that like them are the third world nations around them. Even Russia hates China.

While a slippery slope, with the current relations and politics, most of the slopes we can fall down is in the US's favor.

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

China can not call on their debt.

They also owe us 1,000,000,000,000+.

What?! I never knew that. Where did you find that?

China is becoming more independent, but in the field of politics, they simply do not outdo the US.

I agree with this, but are you serious about them owing us 1 trillion dollars? That's insane.

Ya. China owes us a lot.
After some further research, it's almost at $1 trillion.

Wow, that's crazy. Thanks for the info :)

That's not that much. That's the same as the 8% number you cited earlier. $16 trillion is a lot of debt.
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?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 11:57:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 11:12:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/14/2013 10:09:26 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:48:42 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:36:50 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:38:30 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Well.. We have so many networks for trade... If we lose China, that's okay. China, however, loses most it's trade (it'll lose both the US and Europe.)

People are scared of China, and that is China's greatest weakness, because most nations buying from them will side with the US in any major conflict.

Anything we lose from China can be made up for in Europe and America. China will have a hard time finding good connections like ours because the only people that like them are the third world nations around them. Even Russia hates China.

While a slippery slope, with the current relations and politics, most of the slopes we can fall down is in the US's favor.

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

China can not call on their debt.

They also owe us 1,000,000,000,000+.

What?! I never knew that. Where did you find that?

China is becoming more independent, but in the field of politics, they simply do not outdo the US.

I agree with this, but are you serious about them owing us 1 trillion dollars? That's insane.

Ya. China owes us a lot.
After some further research, it's almost at $1 trillion.

Wow, that's crazy. Thanks for the info :)

That's not that much. That's the same as the 8% number you cited earlier. $16 trillion is a lot of debt.

That's not china's total debt, that is how much china owes america alone. If China would stop violating international law then we could just offset each other's debt, but they claim just because their government changed that they no longer are responsible for the debt, although this is not in compliance with international law. We technically should owe them little to nothing.

http://www.americanbondholdersfoundation.com...
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 12:43:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 11:57:06 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:12:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/14/2013 10:09:26 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:48:42 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 8/14/2013 8:36:50 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/14/2013 12:38:30 AM, donald.keller wrote:
Well.. We have so many networks for trade... If we lose China, that's okay. China, however, loses most it's trade (it'll lose both the US and Europe.)

People are scared of China, and that is China's greatest weakness, because most nations buying from them will side with the US in any major conflict.

Anything we lose from China can be made up for in Europe and America. China will have a hard time finding good connections like ours because the only people that like them are the third world nations around them. Even Russia hates China.

While a slippery slope, with the current relations and politics, most of the slopes we can fall down is in the US's favor.

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

China can not call on their debt.

They also owe us 1,000,000,000,000+.

What?! I never knew that. Where did you find that?

China is becoming more independent, but in the field of politics, they simply do not outdo the US.

I agree with this, but are you serious about them owing us 1 trillion dollars? That's insane.

Ya. China owes us a lot.
After some further research, it's almost at $1 trillion.

Wow, that's crazy. Thanks for the info :)

That's not that much. That's the same as the 8% number you cited earlier. $16 trillion is a lot of debt.

That's not china's total debt, that is how much china owes america alone. If China would stop violating international law then we could just offset each other's debt, but they claim just because their government changed that they no longer are responsible for the debt, although this is not in compliance with international law. We technically should owe them little to nothing.

http://www.americanbondholdersfoundation.com...

Well, I was shocked because I didn't know we were owed that much money. Namely because like you said it would offset completely. That is pretty messed up.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 1:54:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 11:57:06 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:12:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

That's not that much. That's the same as the 8% number you cited earlier. $16 trillion is a lot of debt.

That's not china's total debt, that is how much china owes america alone. If China would stop violating international law then we could just offset each other's debt, but they claim just because their government changed that they no longer are responsible for the debt, although this is not in compliance with international law. We technically should owe them little to nothing.

http://www.americanbondholdersfoundation.com...

1) No, that's how much America owes China.

2) How is China violating international law?

3) I stopped reading your source when it advocated debt default as a solution to our debt problems. That's like saying the solution to life is to cut your wrists.
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?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:02:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
China is more dependent on us than we are on them, I think the general fear associated with China is justified, but that's not the underlying reason. I think it's driven by their tendency to destabilize the world economy which appears deliberate and makes us wonder what the long term agenda is. They have made profound advances in technology, particularly in the communications space, there is a degree of global telecom dependence on Chinese technology which has been funded and advanced by the People's Liberation Army. Both Huawei and ZTE were initially funded and have always been managed by the PLA and they are well embedded in the global infrastructure. What they don"t produce they manufacture for other telecom makers, so they pretty much have the ability to steal all the technology as well as monitor everything going across all our global networks, and it"s been proven that they do. Nortel Networks was unique in being a major telecom supplier that had very little of their manufacturing in China and we found they were hacking Nortel's networks and stealing their technology for decades, Nortel knew they had placed backdoors into their fiber products for ten years before it was revealed to the government and public. While all this has been happening they have become dominant in the technology critical rare earth markets to the point of controlling the global supply. I"m not a conspiracy theorist but these developments can"t all be seen as isolated incidents, they clearly demonstrate a concerted effort and a long term agenda to worry about.

Considering their taste for destabilizing economies this is all very disconcerting. Coupled with monumental hacking and corporate internet espionage, also driven by the PLA, they have the ability to steal almost any information running across the global networks because that ability is designed into Huawei and ZTE products, it is retrofitted into products they manufacture, and the rest they have just hacked into. The fact that so much high tech is manufactured by China, so much technology is stolen, and the fact that they have clearly demonstrated that they don"t respect patent infringement laws is a very serious situation that gives us plenty to be concerned about.

Their economic growth has been astounding in recent decades but they are still way behind, but the best way to become number one is to make the rest of the world economies take a nose dive and they have put the ability to make that happen in place.

They would certainly suffer in a global economic meltdown too, but probably less than the rest of the world, and they have positioned themselves to not only recover more quickly, but emerge as globally dominant and in control. Not a pleasant potential situation given their extreme nationalism and propensity to violate basic human rights. Let"s recognize that the people within China that have positioned themselves for world domination are the same folks that rolled tanks over their own college students in Tiananmen Square, the same people that made China a formidable nuclear power and put a station in space, and we currently need to trust their intentions and rely on their good faith support of the rest of the world's people, and history gives us no reason to do so

Maybe I am a conspiracy theorist after all, but I can"t help but be reminded of the Albert Einstein quote "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones" and worry that World War III has already begun and the weapon it"s being fought with is computer networks. I seriously doubt that a World War IV with China a nuclear power and high tech army against everyone else fighting with sticks and stones will go well for the rest of us.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:04:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 8:54:55 PM, Shadowguynick wrote:
At 8/13/2013 1:18:53 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:13:33 AM, Shadowguynick wrote:
I just want to know if anyone thinks we are too dependent on China. Thoughts?

Elaborate on "dependency".

Like, I know a lot of people who are scared that China will just stop giving us money if we don't pay it back, or that they could end up owning us, or something along those lines. I just don't know why they think that. They seem scared that we are only keeping our economy intact because they give us money, and that they're looking to take us over. They want to reduce our dependency on them. I just don't understand though. Because...
1. They can't call back their debt
2. It's better for them to keep buying
3. They only own 8% of our debt (or around there)
4. For every dollar we owe to all foreign countries, foreign countries owe us 89 cents (again, somewhere in that ballpark)
5. If America stopped buying China's products their economy would plummet faster that a rock dropped from the empire state.

I just don't know what their scared of.

Sir,

Interesting topic of discussion, thank you for clarifying dependency, this helps us come to a logical conclusion.

I will adopt a neutral stance and provide evidence both for and against the proposition.

Trade Exports/Imports

Supply and demand, it drives capitalist economics, specifically western capitalism, it's what ensures your burgers are 99 pence (or cents... I suppose) because the supply is such that keeps the price down and the demand is relatively constant (compared to, say, Blackberry mobile phones... or blackberry"s for that).

China is the supply source 1 demonstrates just how much of how much the burgoning nation provides the United States, in agriculture for example.

"China is the world"s top producer of rice and is among the principal sources of wheat, corn (maize), tobacco, soybeans, potatoes, sorghum, peanuts, tea, millet, barley, oilseed, pork, and fish."

Specifically for the United States source 2 demonstrates the sheer number of imported goods into the United States from China, specifically the chapter on 'Chinese Economic Growth' shows us that 48.3% of US imports by sea come from mainland China. Perhaps even more significantly Chinas exports to the USA total 28%, meaning that statistically China would lose less by comparison of it's exports than the United States would lose in imports if the US were to stop being its customer tomorrow.

Now in reverse, how much does China import from the United States? Well interestingly I found this chart in source 3, which clarifies the entire import/export issue. The last balance of import/export between the US and China was -26,649, 800,000. To put that in context the US trade in goods with world balance is -51,785, 400,000 (source 4). (both figures are for the same month of June 2013)

This is no great revelation I know, but I have an unhealthy penchant for numbers.

This could be turned on its head, this means that undoubtedly the US is one of China's biggest and best customers.

Now it gets interesting, because the historian in me wants to desperately point out, that between 1939 and 1945 onwards the United Kingdom was the United States biggest and best customer (source 5). That did not give the United Kingdom any power over the United States at all, the opposite was the case, and as I sit here in rainy England wearing jeans, drinking coffee (Italian I know.. but you get the point) & watching Breaking Bad, I wonder if the real power eventually is in the hand of the supplier.

I understand that there are a lot of other factors involved, and it's terribly simplistic to compare the 1939 situation with the current, but I felt it was worth a mention, plus there is a whole other set of factors to consider...

Finance & Debt

Interestingly before I delve in, I found this on source 6, which is a good way of summarizing where we are thus far, in terms of the resources each has to bear, I know the discussion is on dependency... But who can deny a man a guardian wall chart?

Simply put, China has a surplus of $214 billion, the States a debt of $487 billion. Debts, especially US debt, is not actually that bad, it's deficit that keeps presidents up at night (except Bill Clinton of course... sorry Bill of you're reading this).

Most of the US debt is owned by China (source 7) but owning debt doesn't automatically denote power, in consumer terms it does, but at this level I think even my simple brain can appreciate it's a damn sight more complex than that.

For a start debt needs to be measured against GDP, I would simply say this is important because if I owe "100.00 but I earn "2000.00 per month, it's not all that bad. If I owe "100.00 and earn "50.00 per month, it looks much more difficult for me to break free of the debt.

Source 8 breaks this down and debt as a percentage of GDP, currently sitting at 108% (depending on how you measure it, 108% is the worst figure for the purpose of this post) compared to other nations, ranking 15th by this scale in source 9.

But China doesn't own all of this public debt, not all of it, so the initial suggestion that somehow China will 'own' the United States is a little extreme. Nor can China demand immiate repayment, that's just not how international debt operates, China would struggle to enter financial transactions with any nation on this basis, arguably if China did make an unreasonable demand like this, then the US could well invoke articles within NATO. Crazy right? Not really, an immediate demand of repayment could be classed as economic warfare, one would question why China would do such a thing when they have such a great thing going on at the moment?

There's another consideration, it's really important.

China in its current form, does not reward innovation, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Google.... they weren't invented by Chinese entrepreneurs, but Americans living 'the American dream' the Chinese dream by comparison involves trying to get onto YouTube.. another production of American innovation.

The article in Source 10 by a Chinese graduate highlights this better than I ever could, and demonstrates this feeling from the Chinese perspective well in my view.

To conclude, this is an on-going event, unfolding before our eyes, I think as you are an American, you should do the best by your country, not ask yourself 'will China own us?' but instead ask 'what can I do to make my nation the best it can be?'

The American dream isn't dead yet, the day it dies is the day you stop creating, changing and progressing things, striving and seeking for the nation of individuals you could be and should be.

Good luck chaps.
Ben

Source 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Source 2:
http://international.fhwa.dot.gov...

Source 3:
http://www.census.gov...

Source 4:
http://www.census.gov...

Source 5:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Source 6:
http://www.theguardian.com...

Source 7:
http://www.treasury.gov...

Source 8:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Source 9:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Source 10:
http://newventurist.com...
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:03:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:02:40 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
China is more dependent on us than we are on them, I think the general fear associated with China is justified, but that's not the underlying reason. I think it's driven by their tendency to destabilize the world economy which appears deliberate and makes us wonder what the long term agenda is. They have made profound advances in technology, particularly in the communications space, there is a degree of global telecom dependence on Chinese technology which has been funded and advanced by the People's Liberation Army. Both Huawei and ZTE were initially funded and have always been managed by the PLA and they are well embedded in the global infrastructure. What they don"t produce they manufacture for other telecom makers, so they pretty much have the ability to steal all the technology as well as monitor everything going across all our global networks, and it"s been proven that they do. Nortel Networks was unique in being a major telecom supplier that had very little of their manufacturing in China and we found they were hacking Nortel's networks and stealing their technology for decades, Nortel knew they had placed backdoors into their fiber products for ten years before it was revealed to the government and public. While all this has been happening they have become dominant in the technology critical rare earth markets to the point of controlling the global supply. I"m not a conspiracy theorist but these developments can"t all be seen as isolated incidents, they clearly demonstrate a concerted effort and a long term agenda to worry about.

Considering their taste for destabilizing economies this is all very disconcerting. Coupled with monumental hacking and corporate internet espionage, also driven by the PLA, they have the ability to steal almost any information running across the global networks because that ability is designed into Huawei and ZTE products, it is retrofitted into products they manufacture, and the rest they have just hacked into. The fact that so much high tech is manufactured by China, so much technology is stolen, and the fact that they have clearly demonstrated that they don"t respect patent infringement laws is a very serious situation that gives us plenty to be concerned about.

Their economic growth has been astounding in recent decades but they are still way behind, but the best way to become number one is to make the rest of the world economies take a nose dive and they have put the ability to make that happen in place.

They would certainly suffer in a global economic meltdown too, but probably less than the rest of the world, and they have positioned themselves to not only recover more quickly, but emerge as globally dominant and in control. Not a pleasant potential situation given their extreme nationalism and propensity to violate basic human rights. Let"s recognize that the people within China that have positioned themselves for world domination are the same folks that rolled tanks over their own college students in Tiananmen Square, the same people that made China a formidable nuclear power and put a station in space, and we currently need to trust their intentions and rely on their good faith support of the rest of the world's people, and history gives us no reason to do so

Maybe I am a conspiracy theorist after all, but I can"t help but be reminded of the Albert Einstein quote "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones" and worry that World War III has already begun and the weapon it"s being fought with is computer networks. I seriously doubt that a World War IV with China a nuclear power and high tech army against everyone else fighting with sticks and stones will go well for the rest of us.

Well, the problem is that if the rest of the world collapse China will go down the hardest. Their biggest problem is that their economy is almost exclusively exported. Meaning everything they make will probably be exported. If no one can buy their goods, then China will collapse. They would even have a hard time selling their products in china, since they pay the workers so little. Their hackers are a problem though.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 10:13:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 1:54:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:57:06 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:12:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

That's not that much. That's the same as the 8% number you cited earlier. $16 trillion is a lot of debt.

That's not china's total debt, that is how much china owes america alone. If China would stop violating international law then we could just offset each other's debt, but they claim just because their government changed that they no longer are responsible for the debt, although this is not in compliance with international law. We technically should owe them little to nothing.

http://www.americanbondholdersfoundation.com...

1) No, that's how much America owes China.

America owes china 1.2 trillion dollars, if you adjust inflation, China owes us almost the same amount.

2) How is China violating international law?

The chinese nationalist government borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from europe and the US in bonds from WWII and pre-WWII to stimulate China's economy. China claims because it is now under a different government it is not obligated to pay that debt, although international law states that a nation is responsible for it's debt regardless of regime change. Think about it, if china's logic was applicable to the US, every time we elected a new president our debt would be cleared.

3) I stopped reading your source when it advocated debt default as a solution to our debt problems. That's like saying the solution to life is to cut your wrists.

It's a suggestion, doesn't take away the credibility of the facts stated in the article.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 6:08:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 10:13:16 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/15/2013 1:54:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:57:06 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:12:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

That's not that much. That's the same as the 8% number you cited earlier. $16 trillion is a lot of debt.

That's not china's total debt, that is how much china owes america alone. If China would stop violating international law then we could just offset each other's debt, but they claim just because their government changed that they no longer are responsible for the debt, although this is not in compliance with international law. We technically should owe them little to nothing.

http://www.americanbondholdersfoundation.com...

1) No, that's how much America owes China.


America owes china 1.2 trillion dollars, if you adjust inflation, China owes us almost the same amount.

You're going to have to source the latter claim. I sense some manipulation of data there. Privately owned Chinese debt shouldn't count...otherwise you'd have to count the privately owned US debt to foreigners as well.

2) How is China violating international law?

The chinese nationalist government borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from europe and the US in bonds from WWII and pre-WWII to stimulate China's economy. China claims because it is now under a different government it is not obligated to pay that debt, although international law states that a nation is responsible for it's debt regardless of regime change. Think about it, if china's logic was applicable to the US, every time we elected a new president our debt would be cleared.

I don't buy this either. Regime change is much more than just electing a different leader...China cycles leadership every 5 years as well. International law has extremely limited validity, IMHO, as there is no international body to enforce it.

Bringing up WWII and pre-WWII debt is like the South bringing up the Civil war as a justifiable reason to kill Americans.

3) I stopped reading your source when it advocated debt default as a solution to our debt problems. That's like saying the solution to life is to cut your wrists.

It's a suggestion, doesn't take away the credibility of the facts stated in the article.
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
8/15/2013 6:16:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:08:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:13:16 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:

2) How is China violating international law?

The chinese nationalist government borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from europe and the US in bonds from WWII and pre-WWII to stimulate China's economy. China claims because it is now under a different government it is not obligated to pay that debt, although international law states that a nation is responsible for it's debt regardless of regime change. Think about it, if china's logic was applicable to the US, every time we elected a new president our debt would be cleared.

I don't buy this either. Regime change is much more than just electing a different leader...China cycles leadership every 5 years as well. International law has extremely limited validity, IMHO, as there is no international body to enforce it.

Bringing up WWII and pre-WWII debt is like the South bringing up the Civil war as a justifiable reason to kill Americans.

I will also add that technically, the regime that floated those bonds is still in existence. If the US truly wants to cash in on such claims (given that such claims are even valid to begin with, which I doubt), they should be hounding the KMT in Taiwan.

Regardless, your link is tripe, IMHO.
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?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 7:45:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:08:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:13:16 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/15/2013 1:54:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:57:06 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:12:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

That's not that much. That's the same as the 8% number you cited earlier. $16 trillion is a lot of debt.

That's not china's total debt, that is how much china owes america alone. If China would stop violating international law then we could just offset each other's debt, but they claim just because their government changed that they no longer are responsible for the debt, although this is not in compliance with international law. We technically should owe them little to nothing.

http://www.americanbondholdersfoundation.com...

1) No, that's how much America owes China.


America owes china 1.2 trillion dollars, if you adjust inflation, China owes us almost the same amount.

You're going to have to source the latter claim. I sense some manipulation of data there. Privately owned Chinese debt shouldn't count...otherwise you'd have to count the privately owned US debt to foreigners as well.

That is counted. Privately owned debt is always counted, debt is debt. The US has stepped in militarily before when regimes have tried to nationalize private businesses and holdings. Hawaii? Cuba?

It took me some digging but I found the primary source.

http://www.foxnews.com...

This debt is also in Dept. of State records.


2) How is China violating international law?

The chinese nationalist government borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from europe and the US in bonds from WWII and pre-WWII to stimulate China's economy. China claims because it is now under a different government it is not obligated to pay that debt, although international law states that a nation is responsible for it's debt regardless of regime change. Think about it, if china's logic was applicable to the US, every time we elected a new president our debt would be cleared.

I don't buy this either. Regime change is much more than just electing a different leader...China cycles leadership every 5 years as well. International law has extremely limited validity, IMHO, as there is no international body to enforce it.

Not really, if the US went from a far right president to a far left president would our debts be cleared? That is what happened in china, except through years of civil war and violence obviously.

Bringing up WWII and pre-WWII debt is like the South bringing up the Civil war as a justifiable reason to kill Americans.

That's obvious hyperbole, and remembering the civil war existed and remembering china still owes us money is different from using that to kill them over.

3) I stopped reading your source when it advocated debt default as a solution to our debt problems. That's like saying the solution to life is to cut your wrists.

It's a suggestion, doesn't take away the credibility of the facts stated in the article.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 8:32:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:45:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:08:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/15/2013 10:13:16 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/15/2013 1:54:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:57:06 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/14/2013 11:12:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

That's not that much. That's the same as the 8% number you cited earlier. $16 trillion is a lot of debt.

That's not china's total debt, that is how much china owes america alone. If China would stop violating international law then we could just offset each other's debt, but they claim just because their government changed that they no longer are responsible for the debt, although this is not in compliance with international law. We technically should owe them little to nothing.

http://www.americanbondholdersfoundation.com...

1) No, that's how much America owes China.


America owes china 1.2 trillion dollars, if you adjust inflation, China owes us almost the same amount.

You're going to have to source the latter claim. I sense some manipulation of data there. Privately owned Chinese debt shouldn't count...otherwise you'd have to count the privately owned US debt to foreigners as well.

That is counted. Privately owned debt is always counted, debt is debt. The US has stepped in militarily before when regimes have tried to nationalize private businesses and holdings. Hawaii? Cuba?

It took me some digging but I found the primary source.


http://www.foxnews.com...

This debt is also in Dept. of State records.

I read that. I was hoping you had sourced something better. Fox sourced the argument from this:

"From 1900 to 1939, China issued bonds purchased worldwide and even recommended by the US government as a sound investment. These were long term bonds of the sort issued by governments around the world; the same sort of US bonds held by China today and which the US is said to be in danger of defaulting on."
http://bluecollarmuse.com...

My argument about this being KMT debt firmly holds. This is an instance of really sh!tty journalism from Fox, IMHO. Even though it was an editorial piece, it was sloppy and extremely poorly researched. That such opinion pieces started to invade the WSJ after Fox bought it caused me to end my subscription after 10 years of being a happy customer.

2) How is China violating international law?

The chinese nationalist government borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from europe and the US in bonds from WWII and pre-WWII to stimulate China's economy. China claims because it is now under a different government it is not obligated to pay that debt, although international law states that a nation is responsible for it's debt regardless of regime change. Think about it, if china's logic was applicable to the US, every time we elected a new president our debt would be cleared.

I don't buy this either. Regime change is much more than just electing a different leader...China cycles leadership every 5 years as well. International law has extremely limited validity, IMHO, as there is no international body to enforce it.

Not really, if the US went from a far right president to a far left president would our debts be cleared? That is what happened in china, except through years of civil war and violence obviously.

The issuing government lost the civil war, and set up shop in Taiwan. THAT government owes the US $$$, even though over the course of the next 50 years the US continually gave billions in foreign aide to that government.

Bringing up WWII and pre-WWII debt is like the South bringing up the Civil war as a justifiable reason to kill Americans.

That's obvious hyperbole, and remembering the civil war existed and remembering china still owes us money is different from using that to kill them over.

While I agree it is hyperbole, it aptly describes the hyperbole inherent in the Fox news article.
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
8/15/2013 8:37:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 7:45:29 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 8/15/2013 6:08:08 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

America owes china 1.2 trillion dollars, if you adjust inflation, China owes us almost the same amount.

You're going to have to source the latter claim. I sense some manipulation of data there. Privately owned Chinese debt shouldn't count...otherwise you'd have to count the privately owned US debt to foreigners as well.

That is counted. Privately owned debt is always counted, debt is debt. The US has stepped in militarily before when regimes have tried to nationalize private businesses and holdings. Hawaii? Cuba?

No, just no.

1) Hawaii and Cuba have nothing to do with any of this.

2) Nationalization has nothing to do with this. We are talking about national debt. You do not nationalize the IRS, the IRS is already a national organization.

3) Privately owned debt is not debt owed by one government to another. For example, US debt owned by China is different than US debt owned by Chinese.

Regardless, this is an insignificant point, since the debt being discussed belongs to the KMT in Taiwan like I've said earlier and which you've ignored for whatever reason.
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
8/21/2013 2:28:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 6:04:05 AM, Homosapien wrote:
At 8/13/2013 8:54:55 PM, Shadowguynick wrote:

Sir,

Interesting topic of discussion, thank you for clarifying dependency, this helps us come to a logical conclusion.

I will adopt a neutral stance and provide evidence both for and against the proposition.

Trade Exports/Imports

Supply and demand, it drives capitalist economics, specifically western capitalism, it's what ensures your burgers are 99 pence (or cents... I suppose) because the supply is such that keeps the price down and the demand is relatively constant (compared to, say, Blackberry mobile phones... or blackberry"s for that).

China is the supply source 1 demonstrates just how much of how much the burgoning nation provides the United States, in agriculture for example.

"China is the world"s top producer of rice and is among the principal sources of wheat, corn (maize), tobacco, soybeans, potatoes, sorghum, peanuts, tea, millet, barley, oilseed, pork, and fish."

I do believe that China is still a net importer of agricultural goods despite being the world's top producer.

Specifically for the United States source 2 demonstrates the sheer number of imported goods into the United States from China, specifically the chapter on 'Chinese Economic Growth' shows us that 48.3% of US imports by sea come from mainland China. Perhaps even more significantly Chinas exports to the USA total 28%, meaning that statistically China would lose less by comparison of it's exports than the United States would lose in imports if the US were to stop being its customer tomorrow.

Now in reverse, how much does China import from the United States? Well interestingly I found this chart in source 3, which clarifies the entire import/export issue. The last balance of import/export between the US and China was -26,649, 800,000. To put that in context the US trade in goods with world balance is -51,785, 400,000 (source 4). (both figures are for the same month of June 2013)

This is no great revelation I know, but I have an unhealthy penchant for numbers.

This could be turned on its head, this means that undoubtedly the US is one of China's biggest and best customers.

Now it gets interesting, because the historian in me wants to desperately point out, that between 1939 and 1945 onwards the United Kingdom was the United States biggest and best customer (source 5). That did not give the United Kingdom any power over the United States at all, the opposite was the case, and as I sit here in rainy England wearing jeans, drinking coffee (Italian I know.. but you get the point) & watching Breaking Bad, I wonder if the real power eventually is in the hand of the supplier.

The real power is in the hands of the supplier, always. China is the supplier of cheap labor. Russia and the Middle East are suppliers of cheap energy. The US is the supplier of "cheap" military power, in that we derive the most potency per dollar spent on military goods (ok, so this last bit may be a bald assertion, lol).

I understand that there are a lot of other factors involved, and it's terribly simplistic to compare the 1939 situation with the current, but I felt it was worth a mention, plus there is a whole other set of factors to consider...

Finance & Debt

Interestingly before I delve in, I found this on source 6, which is a good way of summarizing where we are thus far, in terms of the resources each has to bear, I know the discussion is on dependency... But who can deny a man a guardian wall chart?

Simply put, China has a surplus of $214 billion, the States a debt of $487 billion. Debts, especially US debt, is not actually that bad, it's deficit that keeps presidents up at night (except Bill Clinton of course... sorry Bill of you're reading this).

The Guardian is wrong here...it's talking about Current Account Balances, i.e. trade surpluses and DEFICITS, not debts.
https://www.cia.gov...

Most of the US debt is owned by China (source 7) but owning debt doesn't automatically denote power, in consumer terms it does, but at this level I think even my simple brain can appreciate it's a damn sight more complex than that.

Now you are talking about actual debt, and the US owes China over $1 trillion.

For a start debt needs to be measured against GDP, I would simply say this is important because if I owe "100.00 but I earn "2000.00 per month, it's not all that bad. If I owe "100.00 and earn "50.00 per month, it looks much more difficult for me to break free of the debt.

Source 8 breaks this down and debt as a percentage of GDP, currently sitting at 108% (depending on how you measure it, 108% is the worst figure for the purpose of this post) compared to other nations, ranking 15th by this scale in source 9.

This is a different number, total US debt is $16 trillion or so, as is US GDP. 8% of that debt is owed to China.

But China doesn't own all of this public debt, not all of it, so the initial suggestion that somehow China will 'own' the United States is a little extreme. Nor can China demand immiate repayment, that's just not how international debt operates, China would struggle to enter financial transactions with any nation on this basis, arguably if China did make an unreasonable demand like this, then the US could well invoke articles within NATO. Crazy right? Not really, an immediate demand of repayment could be classed as economic warfare, one would question why China would do such a thing when they have such a great thing going on at the moment?

The real recourse comes in market movements. China could dump US treasuries onto the market, thereby increasing rates for US debt, meaning that US interest payments would increase, which could exacerbate the US's already precarious budgetary situation.

There's another consideration, it's really important.

China in its current form, does not reward innovation, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Google.... they weren't invented by Chinese entrepreneurs, but Americans living 'the American dream' the Chinese dream by comparison involves trying to get onto YouTube.. another production of American innovation.

The article in Source 10 by a Chinese graduate highlights this better than I ever could, and demonstrates this feeling from the Chinese perspective well in my view.

China is playing catch-up. Why innovate when it's much, MUCH easier to just copy what the US does?

To conclude, this is an on-going event, unfolding before our eyes, I think as you are an American, you should do the best by your country, not ask yourself 'will China own us?' but instead ask 'what can I do to make my nation the best it can be?'

The American dream isn't dead yet, the day it dies is the day you stop creating, changing and progressing things, striving and seeking for the nation of individuals you could be and should be.

Good luck chaps.
Ben

Fully agree with this last part. Cheers.
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?