china and American debt

[Anonymous]

Well, I meant when they could make commercial aircraft sufficiently capable that they needed to buy nothing from Boeing, apparently the only hard good the US makes the Chinese need right now.

(And there is no doubt that at that point the domestic Chinese airlines will be encouraged to buy Chinese.)

China manufactures its own military planes in a reasonably comprehensive spectrum (I don’t believe Brazil does), so it’s not that far away.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/avic.htm

Note:

However, in the wake of joint ventures with the United States and Europe in the area of civilian aircraft (particularly the MD-80 and MD-90 at Shanghai Aircraft Industries Corp. (SAIC)) the general level of Chinese aircraft workmanship has apparently risen. Because Western commercial standards are more stringent than previous Chinese specifications, the overall level of Chinese quality control has improved. Chinese combat aircraft are now reported to have a much smoother surfaces than before, suggesting a flow of personnel and expertise from civilian to military production lines.

[Anonymous]

Well, I meant when they could make commercial aircraft sufficiently capable that they needed to buy nothing from Boeing, apparently the only hard good the US makes the Chinese need right now.

(And there is no doubt that at that point the domestic Chinese airlines will be encouraged to buy Chinese.)

China manufactures its own military planes in a reasonably comprehensive spectrum (I don’t believe Brazil does), so it’s not that far away.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/avic.htm

Note:

However, in the wake of joint ventures with the United States and Europe in the area of civilian aircraft (particularly the MD-80 and MD-90 at Shanghai Aircraft Industries Corp. (SAIC)) the general level of Chinese aircraft workmanship has apparently risen. Because Western commercial standards are more stringent than previous Chinese specifications, the overall level of Chinese quality control has improved. Chinese combat aircraft are now reported to have a much smoother surfaces than before, suggesting a flow of personnel and expertise from civilian to military production lines.

[kewp]

Well, the thing is, we really don’t *have* to be so indebted to the Chinese in the first place! The only reason we are in as deep as we are is that the current administration is cutting taxes for the super-rich while simultaneously funding a hideously expensive war.

Once the Dem’s are in total control the budget will get balanced.

[kewp]

Well, the thing is, we really don’t *have* to be so indebted to the Chinese in the first place! The only reason we are in as deep as we are is that the current administration is cutting taxes for the super-rich while simultaneously funding a hideously expensive war.

Once the Dem’s are in total control the budget will get balanced.

[JJGittes]

Doomed, doomed, I say……Just like when the Japanese were buying up all the prime US real estate and dominating us with their shrewd manufacturing and business abilities. Remember that scary Crieghton book? Oooooo. Goodness knows that Pebble Beach deal (among 10,000 othgers) went great for them, right?

Yawn to all the doomsday stuff, Algore and his Prius-speeding progeny included.

[JJGittes]

Doomed, doomed, I say……Just like when the Japanese were buying up all the prime US real estate and dominating us with their shrewd manufacturing and business abilities. Remember that scary Crieghton book? Oooooo. Goodness knows that Pebble Beach deal (among 10,000 othgers) went great for them, right?

Yawn to all the doomsday stuff, Algore and his Prius-speeding progeny included.

[Anonymous]

I can’t fathom your logic that it is in China’s interest that we self-destruct.

This is the logic, it is simple.

We are approaching or already at “peak oil”, the moment at which crude oil production inevitably turns down permanently.

At some time, which will be fairly soon, the value of a prosperous U.S. to China (buying Chinese exports) will be outweighed by its competition for raw resources. The Chinese internal market is developing extremely rapidly, replacing the need for US. A poorer US would demand and be able to pay for less resources leaving more for the Chinese at lower prices, contributing to greater Chinese prosperity.

A strongly physical resource constrained world presents very distinct challenges from what we’re used to. It’s not a win-win scenario, it’s one wins and the other loses scenario.

The US is the primary competitor to China strategically in energy. Everybody else can be coopted, so China has to consider the costs of what happens when the stress with the US comes. The point is that they really need or want little at that moment, and that has come about in large measure because of hypercapitalism moving capital and knowledge and capability to China.

It is also amusing to think that what Soviet Union couldn’t achieve in 50 years using nuclear weapons can be achieved (by China, if we believe your theory) in shorter time by dumping cheap goods.

Why do you think the inability of the Soviets means the same of the Chinese, when they’re persuing entirely opposite strategies? The USSR failed without capitalism and being essential to the global financial network.

The Chinese have already demonstrated that they are much smarter than the Soviets were. They have manufacturing and tecnological and financial capabilities much stronger than the USSR did, relative to US.

Wal-mart will not do us in. Oil depletion and deindustralization of high-tech capability will.

Japan and Europe will eventually be hurt too, but they still retain significantly more domestic high-tech manufacturing capability due to mercantilist policies.

Germany might have a trade surplus with China—Europe’s balance is much closer than the US.

The point about Boeing is asking the question “What do the Chinese need or want from the US?” China needs the least from the US and in resources competes the most.

If OPEC didn’t kill us in ’70s, Soviets didn’t blow us up during Cold War, I have problem believing Wal-mart will do us in.

“If the Tsar and the Nazis couldn’t defeat us, and we caught up with our missiles even though we were devastated by the Wehrmacht, and we bluffed JFK during the Cold War, I have a problem believing some medieval Afghan ragheads and a brainless twit like Ronald Reagan will do us in.” — some Bolshevik.

[Anonymous]

I can’t fathom your logic that it is in China’s interest that we self-destruct.

This is the logic, it is simple.

We are approaching or already at “peak oil”, the moment at which crude oil production inevitably turns down permanently.

At some time, which will be fairly soon, the value of a prosperous U.S. to China (buying Chinese exports) will be outweighed by its competition for raw resources. The Chinese internal market is developing extremely rapidly, replacing the need for US. A poorer US would demand and be able to pay for less resources leaving more for the Chinese at lower prices, contributing to greater Chinese prosperity.

A strongly physical resource constrained world presents very distinct challenges from what we’re used to. It’s not a win-win scenario, it’s one wins and the other loses scenario.

The US is the primary competitor to China strategically in energy. Everybody else can be coopted, so China has to consider the costs of what happens when the stress with the US comes. The point is that they really need or want little at that moment, and that has come about in large measure because of hypercapitalism moving capital and knowledge and capability to China.

It is also amusing to think that what Soviet Union couldn’t achieve in 50 years using nuclear weapons can be achieved (by China, if we believe your theory) in shorter time by dumping cheap goods.

Why do you think the inability of the Soviets means the same of the Chinese, when they’re persuing entirely opposite strategies? The USSR failed without capitalism and being essential to the global financial network.

The Chinese have already demonstrated that they are much smarter than the Soviets were. They have manufacturing and tecnological and financial capabilities much stronger than the USSR did, relative to US.

Wal-mart will not do us in. Oil depletion and deindustralization of high-tech capability will.

Japan and Europe will eventually be hurt too, but they still retain significantly more domestic high-tech manufacturing capability due to mercantilist policies.

Germany might have a trade surplus with China—Europe’s balance is much closer than the US.

The point about Boeing is asking the question “What do the Chinese need or want from the US?” China needs the least from the US and in resources competes the most.

If OPEC didn’t kill us in ’70s, Soviets didn’t blow us up during Cold War, I have problem believing Wal-mart will do us in.

“If the Tsar and the Nazis couldn’t defeat us, and we caught up with our missiles even though we were devastated by the Wehrmacht, and we bluffed JFK during the Cold War, I have a problem believing some medieval Afghan ragheads and a brainless twit like Ronald Reagan will do us in.” — some Bolshevik.

[patientrenter]

vrudny, I can’t buy chinese property, or even make bank deposits in yuan. You must be Chinese. Do you know a way for a white devil:) to do either? (I can buy yuan/dollar futures from the CME that do the yuan deposit part, but not property.

Patient renter in OC

[patientrenter]

vrudny, I can’t buy chinese property, or even make bank deposits in yuan. You must be Chinese. Do you know a way for a white devil:) to do either? (I can buy yuan/dollar futures from the CME that do the yuan deposit part, but not property.

Patient renter in OC

[sjk]

Any thoughts?

Yes, we will “stiff” them,when it’s in are(US)interest to do so.

Regards,

[sjk]

Any thoughts?

Yes, we will “stiff” them,when it’s in are(US)interest to do so.

Regards,

[JJsqueeze]

I harbored similar fears about China regarding their US debt holdings and our growing dependence on them until I went to China a couple of months ago. I came away being far less concerned with them as a threat. They are industrious, intelligent and hard working, but they also have very opressive government control and in general they are pretty disgruntled with their leadership but without any voice to change it. They still need to go through the transformation we went through 200+ years ago before they can establish a viable worldwide dominance. In these equations, we really should not discount the things that make our country great. At the same time, we do need to wake up and create a culture that is a little less arrogant and recognize that much of what we take for granted is a priveledge, not a right.

[JJsqueeze]

I harbored similar fears about China regarding their US debt holdings and our growing dependence on them until I went to China a couple of months ago. I came away being far less concerned with them as a threat. They are industrious, intelligent and hard working, but they also have very opressive government control and in general they are pretty disgruntled with their leadership but without any voice to change it. They still need to go through the transformation we went through 200+ years ago before they can establish a viable worldwide dominance. In these equations, we really should not discount the things that make our country great. At the same time, we do need to wake up and create a culture that is a little less arrogant and recognize that much of what we take for granted is a priveledge, not a right.

[bsrsharma]

“If the Tsar and the Nazis couldn’t defeat us, and we caught up with our missiles even though we were devastated by the Wehrmacht, and we bluffed JFK during the Cold War, I have a problem believing some medieval Afghan ragheads and a brainless twit like Ronald Reagan will do us in.” — some Bolshevik.

Dr Chaos, Since you seem to like Catastrophe theories, I can tell what my probable Catastrophe would be:

1. “raghead” problem you alluded above. It has costed US upwards of a Trillion $ and a wasted decade fighting the islamic terrorism induced wars.

2. The real iceberg that may sink the Titanic is the coming retirement of baby boomers during 2010s – 2020s. As they start drawing down on savings, investments, social security & medicare and stop paying taxes, government budgets and overall economy will get hit by a slow moving tsunami.

I think 1 & 2 are going to impact us more than China or Mexico (illegal immigration)

[Author]

Posts