Will China end up owning the World?

[PZ99]

My question is if China don't end up owning the world will they own up to ending the world? :1zhelp:

 

[luutzu]

My question is if China don't end up owning the world will they own up to ending the world? :1zhelp:

Own up to whom? Earth will be a very quiet place for a long while after.

 

[CanOz]

How an industry helps Chinese students cheat their way into and through U.S. colleges

Well it seems this generation of students studying in foreign Universities may not be that well educated after all...

Explains why a former employee of mine didn't know anything about the practical application of statistics yet had a Six Sigma black belt...

I guess they'll have to be good at Guanxi!

 

[luutzu]

How an industry helps Chinese students cheat their way into and through U.S. colleges

Well it seems this generation of students studying in foreign Universities may not be that well educated after all...

Explains why a former employee of mine didn't know anything about the practical application of statistics yet had a Six Sigma black belt...

I guess they'll have to be good at Guanxi!

Most students from third world aristocrats never go overseas for the education anyway. Kinda like most aristocrats anywhere really.

 

[webbrowan]

I don't think they will own the world. The standards within the country itself are a big conflict right there. They need to be able to work out a lot of things if they want to be able to stay in power and show that they are influential enough, and right now, people just don't respect them enough. Monetarily and financially though, they might just eat us all up unfortunately. the rich people will bulldoze us over because they still have a lot of poor people who will stay behind the scenes and fuel their greed.

 

[Value Collector]

I don't think they will own the world. .

I would think they will own at least 20% of the world, given they have about 20% of the population.

 

[SirRumpole]

A salutary lesson about doing business in China.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-30/matthew-ng-on-the-cost-of-doing-business-in-china/7554694

 

[notting]

China sets Yuan at weakest level that has been set for 5.5 years.
:bricks1:

How short our memory is -

 

[dutchie]

AN INTERNATIONAL tribunal has ruled against China in a bitter row over territorial claims to the South China Sea, which is expected to further escalate tensions in the region.

http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/i...g/news-story/b233d2a9d2d0f332efc7cf62d0b39cb6


BOYCOTT CHINESE GOODS

 

[SirRumpole]

AN INTERNATIONAL tribunal has ruled against China in a bitter row over territorial claims to the South China Sea, which is expected to further escalate tensions in the region.

http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/i...g/news-story/b233d2a9d2d0f332efc7cf62d0b39cb6


BOYCOTT CHINESE GOODS

Funny how some people admire Pauline Hanson for sticking it up international busy bodies but don't like China doing the same thing.



But I do agree that China has gone too far and an international trade embargo is the best way of "helping" them change their mind.

 

[dutchie]

But I do agree that China has gone too far and an international trade embargo is the best way of "helping" them change their mind.

"helping" - I like it.

 

[luutzu]

Funny how some people admire Pauline Hanson for sticking it up international busy bodies but don't like China doing the same thing.



But I do agree that China has gone too far and an international trade embargo is the best way of "helping" them change their mind.

There's not going to be any sanctions or embargoes. You only do that kind of stuff to really weak countries. That and sanctioning China will upset a whole heap of corporations - WalMart for one will not be happy.

That and I'd imagine the Chinese economy might actually improve if they're forced to rapidly invest internally/domestically. They've been trying to do that since the GFC but not nearly enough... So sanction will force them to do some stimulus, enrich their people with the capital that's not offshoring. Well that or they could go nuts and get all Mao and his Great Leap again.

Anyway, US gov't and its corporations thought China would be just another one of those Third World countries they could exploit, like Mexico say. So they take jobs away from their own people, ship it to poor communist-run peasants to make more killings.

The thinking was that once the Comrades open up, US/Western corporations make money, Comrades and their princelings make money, and so will do as they're told.

Except the Chinese have this 5,000 year history where they kinda did their Imperialism thing too and don't mind doing it again. So thanks for the money and the goods, we'll take it from here you Capitalist Pigs.

----

I remember reading in Time, when Bush Jr. first invaded Iraq, that the US has plans and resources to fight two (major) wars simultaneously.

So there's NATO, which is practically US funded, taking on Russia.

There's the ME - all them terrorists who aren't exactly backing down.

There's Africa that the US is secretly getting busy in all over it.

There's also South America where it's also fighting economic and proxy wars against a few who like the Chinese too much.

Then there's Asia against the Chinese.

Then to make things easier, there's domestic unrest at home. There's the growing class of poor and poverty stricken, the shrinking but fatter rich elites (whom you won't and can't tax), the large corporations you think are patriotic but if their accounting and tax practices are anything to go by... it doesn't look good.

Man, talk about taking on the entire world.

 

[CanOz]

That and I'd imagine the Chinese economy might actually improve if they're forced to rapidly invest internally/domestically. They've been trying to do that since the GFC but not nearly enough... So sanction will force them to do some stimulus, enrich their people with the capital that's not offshoring.

Debt to GDP since 2007

Infrastructure growth

The problem is not how much, but how in-effective its been....

The even more alarming figure, which made headlines around the world, is that ineffective investment has cost China $10.8 trillion since 1997. Sixty-two percent of the wasteful investment—$6.8 trillion—was made after 2009, when China went on an investment binge to stimulate its economy.

Why China keeps throwing trillions in investments down the drain

 

[dutchie]

Next year China is going to extend the dashed line around Australia.








China bullies the world courts. With that type of arrogance we should ban all Chinese property purchases.

 

[Tisme]

The west's might was built on knowledge, protestantism, industrious dna and democracy. China's might is predicated on sheer weight of numbers derived from copulation.

 

[luutzu]

Debt to GDP since 2007

Infrastructure growth

The problem is not how much, but how in-effective its been....



Why China keeps throwing trillions in investments down the drain

Not all debt are the same, some could be seen as actual investment.

I scanned through the articles and haven't seen any evidence of China being more wasteful and less efficient than, say, the US. So take that Fortune article - their conclusion (and headline) are based on two measures... then they emphasize that those two measures might not mean anything in the case of China (due to more capital intensive investment etc.).

I wouldn't take their definition of effective and efficient investment too seriously either.

This is not to say that China's not inefficient, or that there's no corruption and coffee money and other incentives to grease the wheel of commerce. But compare to, say, the US and its use of debt - I wouldn't be too quick to think they're more efficient.

So take the bailout of the banks - costing something like $1.5 trillion first couple of years. Then the gov't guarantee all the banks liabilities; then taking further bad assets into its own books etc. etc. I've heard lectures where some economist was saying that the US would have survived fine if a few of those banks were let go. But now they're bigger than ever, and are much more of a risk since they know how the game is going to be played for sure.

Then there's the some $7 trillion spent on just Iraq and Afghanistan alone.

So even if we assume China's investments and stimulus hasn't been as efficient and bang for your buck as it could or was, it does serve the purpose of a stimulus - to put people to work building the country's infrastructure.

Compare that to the US not being really that able to get projects out of Congress. Then there's the endless war creating enemies everywhere versus China's buying favours and influence without really blowing anyone up (yet).

But I think the original point is still valid - that if sanctioned, Chinese private investors will find opportunities within their own country. For resources and raw material they can make do with taking over Mongolia, the two seas and stronger alliance with Russia.

So China could survive without Western trade, not sure how WalMart or GM and Ford would do if they cannot get cheap labour and goods from the Middle Kingdom. Sure they could set up shop in other Asian neighbours but then China could just buy those guys too.

So militarily, can't take on China. Economically you have way too many captain of industry not happy to support or permit it, can't really get an alliance together to blockade... maybe fund some rebellion, but then the Commies don't actually play nice there either.

It's one of those problem you'd kick under the carpet for the next administration.

 

[luutzu]

The west's might was built on knowledge, protestantism, industrious dna and democracy. China's might is predicated on sheer weight of numbers derived from copulation.

Is that right?

I heard from some expert that slavery, colonialism, and other forgettable tools of empires were involved.

 

[luutzu]

Next year China is going to extend the dashed line around Australia.



View attachment 67425




China bullies the world courts. With that type of arrogance we should ban all Chinese property purchases.

Na, next year they'll take the Phillipines. Then those pacific islands. Australia will probably be next decade.

 

[CanOz]

Not all debt are the same, some could be seen as actual investment.

I scanned through the articles and haven't seen any evidence of China being more wasteful and less efficient than, say, the US. So take that Fortune article - their conclusion (and headline) are based on two measures... then they emphasize that those two measures might not mean anything in the case of China (due to more capital intensive investment etc.).

I wouldn't take their definition of effective and efficient investment too seriously either.

This is not to say that China's not inefficient, or that there's no corruption and coffee money and other incentives to grease the wheel of commerce. But compare to, say, the US and its use of debt - I wouldn't be too quick to think they're more efficient.

So take the bailout of the banks - costing something like $1.5 trillion first couple of years. Then the gov't guarantee all the banks liabilities; then taking further bad assets into its own books etc. etc. I've heard lectures where some economist was saying that the US would have survived fine if a few of those banks were let go. But now they're bigger than ever, and are much more of a risk since they know how the game is going to be played for sure.

Then there's the some $7 trillion spent on just Iraq and Afghanistan alone.

So even if we assume China's investments and stimulus hasn't been as efficient and bang for your buck as it could or was, it does serve the purpose of a stimulus - to put people to work building the country's infrastructure.

Compare that to the US not being really that able to get projects out of Congress. Then there's the endless war creating enemies everywhere versus China's buying favours and influence without really blowing anyone up (yet).

But I think the original point is still valid - that if sanctioned, Chinese private investors will find opportunities within their own country. For resources and raw material they can make do with taking over Mongolia, the two seas and stronger alliance with Russia.

So China could survive without Western trade, not sure how WalMart or GM and Ford would do if they cannot get cheap labour and goods from the Middle Kingdom. Sure they could set up shop in other Asian neighbours but then China could just buy those guys too.

So militarily, can't take on China. Economically you have way too many captain of industry not happy to support or permit it, can't really get an alliance together to blockade... maybe fund some rebellion, but then the Commies don't actually play nice there either.

It's one of those problem you'd kick under the carpet for the next administration.

There is no question that the US has been wasteful. I don't think though that bailing out the banks and going to war are generally accepted forms of quantitative easing, however 'stimulating' they may be.

My point that i was making that you seem to have missed or chosen to ignore is that the Chinese have certainly plowed trillions and trillions into stimulus, to the point that they really cannot afford to do much more. Every time they become more dovish, they just create overwhelming asset inflation and mountains more debt.

The problem we have now globally is there is just no more growth left to pay for the growth that the borrowing created. The answer cannot be more stimulus.

If there is something i agree with in your premise, its that the only hope for their economy needs to come from within, but from the consumer.

 

[luutzu]

There is no question that the US has been wasteful. I don't think though that bailing out the banks and going to war are generally accepted forms of quantitative easing, however 'stimulating' they may be.

My point that i was making that you seem to have missed or chosen to ignore is that the Chinese have certainly plowed trillions and trillions into stimulus, to the point that they really cannot afford to do much more. Every time they become more dovish, they just create overwhelming asset inflation and mountains more debt.

The problem we have now globally is there is just no more growth left to pay for the growth that the borrowing created. The answer cannot be more stimulus.

If there is something i agree with in your premise, its that the only hope for their economy needs to come from within, but from the consumer.

Seems war and sales of military hardware are the US only major business in recent decade. Well that and financial engineering.

I have only spent a week in China and haven't paid much attention to its stimulus packages much, definitely not at your level... but it seems the Chinese have plenty of room to stimulate its economy and domestic consumption.

I mean, headline stuff here, they seem to be into the property and infrastructure binge... building plenty of ghost cities and unaffordable apartments sitting empty. Tweek that a bit and hundreds of million Chinese could afford and make good use of those apartments.

Then there's the opportunities to clean up their environment, waste solutions... So if they reach the building/property peak and Western countries decided not to lure the elite's money into overpriced properties.

Seems China and the Western democracies are facing similar problems - plenty of work needs to be done, plenty of cash around to hire underpaid and under-worked people to do it, yet it's sitting in some offshore havens.

Difference might be that the Comrades can just wake up tomorrow and thought to order things be done; whereas our leadership gotta ask Packer and Murdoch if they'd want to or not.