China's strategy in Korean peninsula

Everyone regard the trade deficit makin the same mistake like with Kim and the population of the DPRK.


From the standpoint of the average Jin Soo the current DPRK policy is the worst of all.
They don't need military , nuclear bomb and so on, they have anyway the Chinese gurantee.

But Kim is one ( if not the top one) of the world billionaires, he has a 25.6 million country in his disposal.
If you put an average value of 10000 $ for each DPRK citizen then Kim's net worth is around 256 billion hard case supported by humans.

So, for him using the Chinese gurantee means to loss 90-99% of his net worth, and even without the Chinese he is still sensitive for targeted killing.

That is the reason why he needs nuke.


But for the average DPRK citizen the best outcome can be the next:
1. no nuke
2.Chinese military in DPRK
3.Open up the borders between China and DPRK


See?


This is the same with the US trade ballance.
For the 99% of the US population the current trade policy is bad.
But if you are the owner of a production unit, big business and so on you can get get profit margin simply by squeeze the workers and the locak cometition, using up foreign ,cheaper labour.
So, the 1% can steal the assets from the 99% ,using up the trade policy.

This happens around me.The multis running as big or bigger profit as the sallary pool.
So, yes ,the answer for the problem of the masses economicaly simple, but politicaly difficult.


There is similar issues in China, in the UK, in the US, in Russia and so on.


This was the reason why the Brexit was so succesfull.

Anlsvrthng said:

Everyone regard the trade deficit makin the same mistake like with Kim and the population of the DPRK.


From the standpoint of the average Jin Soo the current DPRK policy is the worst of all.
They don't need military , nuclear bomb and so on, they have anyway the Chinese gurantee.

But Kim is one ( if not the top one) of the world billionaires, he has a 25.6 million country in his disposal.
If you put an average value of 10000 $ for each DPRK citizen then Kim's net worth is around 256 billion hard case supported by humans.

So, for him using the Chinese gurantee means to loss 90-99% of his net worth, and even without the Chinese he is still sensitive for targeted killing.

That is the reason why he needs nuke.


But for the average DPRK citizen the best outcome can be the next:
1. no nuke
2.Chinese military in DPRK
3.Open up the borders between China and DPRK


See?


This is the same with the US trade ballance.
For the 99% of the US population the current trade policy is bad.
But if you are the owner of a production unit, big business and so on you can get get profit margin simply by squeeze the workers and the locak cometition, using up foreign ,cheaper labour.
So, the 1% can steal the assets from the 99% ,using up the trade policy.

This happens around me.The multis running as big or bigger profit as the sallary pool.
So, yes ,the answer for the problem of the masses economicaly simple, but politicaly difficult.


There is similar issues in China, in the UK, in the US, in Russia and so on.


This was the reason why the Brexit was so succesfull.

Click to expand...

@Anlsvrthng, you deserve credit for at least bringing up a country's internal distribution of wealth as an aspect of the issue. Together with internal distribution of opportunity it directly affects national cohesion and thereby national power. International distribution of wealth and opportunity, relative national differences, organic and artificial perceptions of such, and handling of migration both legal and illegal all also come into play. So to bring what looks like multiple pages of OT full circle, both Koreas but especially North Korea is a prime soft power battle ground once they manage to convincingly relegate conflict to being a last resort.

Today news
Bond markets took a hit following a report that China could trim its U.S. Treasury holdings.


Just in case some one forgot
Who holds the most US debt (China, Japan, Belgium, USA)? Learn more here:

Hendrik_2000 said:

Today news
Bond markets took a hit following a report that China could trim its U.S. Treasury holdings.

Click to expand...

The wiki has better data.


Actualy the Chinese US treasury holding increased by 7 % between 2016 october and 2017 october.


Simply the treasury purchases financed approximately 2/3 of the US trade deficit .


Means that if China stop to buy securities, or sell them then the Chinese trade surpluss will decrease, and if the agregated colume of US treasuries grow slower then the US trade deficit decrease.

Anlsvrthng said:

Everyone regard the trade deficit makin the same mistake like with Kim and the population of the DPRK.


From the standpoint of the average Jin Soo the current DPRK policy is the worst of all.
They don't need military , nuclear bomb and so on, they have anyway the Chinese gurantee.

But Kim is one ( if not the top one) of the world billionaires, he has a 25.6 million country in his disposal.
If you put an average value of 10000 $ for each DPRK citizen then Kim's net worth is around 256 billion hard case supported by humans.

So, for him using the Chinese gurantee means to loss 90-99% of his net worth, and even without the Chinese he is still sensitive for targeted killing.

That is the reason why he needs nuke.


But for the average DPRK citizen the best outcome can be the next:
1. no nuke
2.Chinese military in DPRK
3.Open up the borders between China and DPRK


See?


This is the same with the US trade ballance.
For the 99% of the US population the current trade policy is bad.
But if you are the owner of a production unit, big business and so on you can get get profit margin simply by squeeze the workers and the locak cometition, using up foreign ,cheaper labour.
So, the 1% can steal the assets from the 99% ,using up the trade policy.

This happens around me.The multis running as big or bigger profit as the sallary pool.
So, yes ,the answer for the problem of the masses economicaly simple, but politicaly difficult.


There is similar issues in China, in the UK, in the US, in Russia and so on.


This was the reason why the Brexit was so succesfull.

Click to expand...

That was your assumption. Not according to the people who voted:

Anlsvrthng said:

Means that if China stop to buy securities, or sell them then the Chinese trade surpluss will decrease, and if the agregated colume of US treasuries grow slower then the US trade deficit decrease.

Click to expand...

And when the US trade deficit decreases like that, that's due to plummeting economic activity aka too broke to buy things. That will be the sign that the US economy is in its deaths throes. We're not there yet. You wanna know how to tell when a shopaholic has pulled every last string and is of options? When he stops buying things.

Trump says 'probably' has a good relationship with North Korea's Kim: WSJ
January 11, 2018



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he "probably" has a very good relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, a change in tone for Trump after exchanging insults with Kim over Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs.

Trump has derided the North Korean leader as a "maniac" and referred to him as "little rocket man." Kim has responded by calling the U.S. president a "mentally deranged U.S. dotard."

"I probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un," Trump said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. "I have relationships with people. I think you people are surprised."

Kim has warned the United States that he intends to build a nuclear arsenal capable of hitting the United States, prompting threats of military action by Washington.

Asked whether he has spoken with the North Korean leader, Trump told the newspaper: "I don't want to comment on it. I'm not saying I have or haven't. I just don't want to comment."

In November, Trump said while on a trip to Vietnam that becoming friends with Kim "might be a strange thing to happen but it's a possibility."

Kim, in a speech last week, said the "nuclear button is always on my desk," prompting Trump to respond in a tweet that his nuclear button is "a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"

In the Journal interview, Trump suggested his combative tweets are part of a broader strategy.

"You’ll see that a lot with me," he said, "and then all of the sudden somebody’s my best friend. I could give you 20 examples. You could give me 30. I’m a very flexible person."

Trump told the newspaper a decision by the United States and South Korea to postpone military exercises until after next month's Winter Olympics in South Korea "sends a good message to North Korea."

North and South Korea held their first talks in two years on Tuesday. Trump told a news conference in Washington on Wednesday the United States would be willing to speak to Pyongyang "under the right circumstances."

Anlsvrthng said:

The wiki has better data.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Actualy the Chinese US treasury holding increased by 7 % between 2016 october and 2017 october.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Simply the treasury purchases financed approximately 2/3 of the US trade deficit .

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Means that if China stop to buy securities, or sell them then the Chinese trade surpluss will decrease, and if the agregated colume of US treasuries grow slower then the US trade deficit decrease.

Click to expand...

China bought US treasury because she is accumulating dollar due to export success and the need to sterilized the dollar or else there will be inflation As well China success in getting large share of Foreign direct investment resulting in China accumulating dollar. Those flow of money need to be sterilized, US dollar has large capitalization and relatively fluid in relatively stable country But that won't last forever because China is now using the excess dollar investing in BRI and at the same time try to reduce the export

As I said before US get the OPEC(Saudi) to use dollar for oil transaction in return US provide the security of house of Saud and also for a long time US is the best market of Saudi oil. That is what they called petrodollar
But with US is getting more or less self sufficient in oil the saudi market share is declining rapidly
China now is the largest Saudi customer and growing
China did open oil future in yuan starting January 18 So I won't be surprise if Saudi will use Yuan for oil transaction in the future that will beginning of the end for dollar as world currency

Why does China buy U.S. debt?
China buys U.S. debt for the same reasons other countries buy U.S. debt, with two caveats. The crippling 1997 Asian Financial Crisis prompted Asian economies, including China, to build up foreign exchange reserves as a safety net. More specifically, China holds large exchange reserves, which were built up over time due in part to persistent surpluses in the current account, to inhibit cash inflows from trade and investment from destabilizing the domestic economy.

China’s large U.S. Treasury holdings say as much about U.S. power in the global economy as any particularity of the Chinese economy. Broadly speaking, U.S. debt is an in-demand asset. It is safe and convenient. As the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. dollar is extensively used in international transactions. Trade goods are priced in dollars and due to its high demand, the dollar can easily be cashed in. Furthermore, the U.S. government has never defaulted on its debt.

Despite U.S. debt’s attractive qualities, continued U.S. debt financing has concerned economists, who worry that a sudden stop in capital flows to the United States could spark a domestic crisis. Thus, U.S. reliance on debt financing would present challenges—not if demand from China were halted, but if demand from all financial actors suddenly halted.

From a regional perspective, Asian countries hold an unusually large amount of U.S. debt in response to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. During the Asian Financial Crisis, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand saw incoming investments crash to an estimated -$12.1 billion from $93 billion, or 11 percent of their combined pre-crisis GDP. In response, China, Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asian nations maintain large precautionary rainy-day funds of foreign exchange reserves, which—for safety and convenience—include U.S. debt. These policies were vindicated post-2008, when Asian economies boasted a relatively speedy recovery.

From a national perspective, China buys U.S. debt due to its complex financial system. The central bank must purchase U.S. Treasuries and other foreign assets to keep cash inflows from causing inflation. In the case of China, this phenomenon is unusual. A country like China, which saves more than it invests domestically, is typically an international lender.

To avoid inflation, the Chinese central bank removes this incoming foreign currency by purchasing foreign assets—including U.S. Treasury bonds—in a process called “sterilization.” This system has the disadvantage of generating unnecessarily low returns on investment: by relying on FDI, Chinese firms borrow from abroad at high interest rates, while China continues to lend to foreign entities at low interest rates.This system also compels China to purchase foreign assets, including safe, convenient U.S. debt.

antiterror13 said:

I have no idea what you are talking about?

Click to expand...

It was obvious from his very first few posts that he only learnt about economics from google university, with fatally flawed ideas based on an incomplete and warped understanding of basic economic principles.

There is so much wrong with every single economic post he made it makes my eyes hurt!

The most fundamentals problem he has are incinsistencies in logical reasoning and applications; and a complete failure to grasp what social sciences actually mean and the implications of that.

Because economics studies to a large extent how people react and interact in the market, there can never be 100% absolute rules, because human beings are capable of learning and changing their behaviour to adapt their responses to similar scenarios based on past experience, especially if that past experience produced undesired results.

In many ways, economics is a lot like quantum mechanics in that the very act of observing something can change the outcome.

When core economic data is published, or a new statistically significant causal relationship is found; its not just governments and economics professors that takes note, but the market itself takes note and re-adjusts as key economic players digest that new information and apply it to try and maximise their own economic benefit.

In that respects, in economics 1+1 can equal 7.

Economics models are created to try and add some structure and rules to this incredibly complex field. But because those models all rely on creating artificial conditions, constraints and assumptions to simplify things enough for humans to understand and grasp; they are also critically limited by these conditions and assumptions to only be useable as actual rules in academic thought theories. At best, in the real world, these well know models and theories are rule-of-thumb indicators of what is likely to happen, never absolute rules of what will always happen. That’s why you can have the same government apply the same policies in the same country at different times and get different results.

Where economics gets its bad name from is when poor economics students with shaky grasps of these basic fundamentals treat economic models as fundamental truths and oversell the ability of economic models to predict and shape reality.

The only real known ways economics models could work as effective tools to forecast and shape economic activity are: when moves are used as signalling devices to communicate government/central bank intentions to the market (interest rate changes); to directly intervene in the market through supply or demand side interventions (tax changes, government spending, quantative easing etc); or if the economic model/theories used to try and shape economic activity were kept top secret to minimise other economic actors’ ability to recognise the manipulation and to adapt to the attempt to change their behaviour to better suit the needs of others, be it government or corporations, (why companies are investing so much in big data analysis and keeping the results top secret).

All of that is only just looking at domestic economic activity where governments have maximum power. In international economics, where you have governments and central banks from several countries, and top internationals that can wield as much economic power as countries, all often with competing wants and needs; things getting far more complicated since governments will often work to try and activity oppose the economic policies of other governments if it is seen as detrimental to its own economic welfare.

t2contra said:

That was your assumption. Not according to the people who voted:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

NOT assumption.

I voted for brexit as well.

They fear the immigration because it creating competition for jobs, and pushing down the sallaries.
The temporary / agency job used to pay more than the proper full time employment , doing the same things.

Now it is changed , the temp job paying less than the full time employment, because of the immigration
Actually, the agencies become the entry point of immigrants into the job marekt, and thye making huge profit from it.

I talked with a lot of guys, and the general consensus was the same: the immigration push down the sallaries, and that causing issue for them.