Trade War with China

manqiangrexue said:

I wrote that to clarify that YOU first said that Chinese people shouldn't care about other Chinese people being richer over foreigners and that YOU now understand that it was wrong. Even if you make your writing style sound like you are convincing other people and thus there is agreement, it is still you who lost that stupid argument you made.

Click to expand...

I wrote that doesn't matter who is the controlling class, somebody from US, from billionaires, politician and so on, they will seek they own interest, not the interest of the majority..

YOU want to take it as there is no problem if the USA controlling china and so on: P
But that is straw man argument.

manqiangrexue said:

We've done this before. If you look at Japan's economic growth, it was always erratic, sometimes 9%, sometimes 0%, than 4% the next year, and this was during its boom period. It has no similarity to China's maintained and steady strong growth. To say that China will be like Japan because they are similar is the Western economist's version of whistling past the graveyard to calm their fears and fool themselves that they cannot be surpassed. But in reality, even they do not believe it. Only people who don't understand economics may have their fears allayed by this clear comparison fallacy. And only people who truly do not understand economic models think that China's can be copied from the West; they are as different as can be, and fear that the Chinese model is eating the Western model's lunch is a driving force in this trade war.

Click to expand...

I don't want to offend you, but Japan went thought of this economical growing stage between 1880-1940.

manqiangrexue said:

China's growth is unprecedented in the world and one cannot predict the future because of this; this is what you you said in a previous post. LOL But when pressed, you simply said that your prediction is that China will continue to meet its GDP targets. So... if that is your prediction, then I guess, short term, it's easy. But long term, it is not possible, especially not by comparing to other economies, all of which are very different from China's. To draw any conclusion about China's economic future by comparing to another economy is to say that 2 boxers both like to punch and boxer 1 lost the fight to Tyson, so boxer 2 will as well. It is funny.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you want to have faith about that China is different. : )

However beyond the faith, why should be China different ? : )

plawolf said:

This is an excellent article, and a very good illustration of the power of western propaganda.

When you speak to your average westerner, their opinion of Made in China is of cheap and low quality, with the emphasis on poor quality. However, the reality is that it is the quality of Chinese made products that makes China so phenomenally successful, since there are already plenty of places were labour is increasingly cheaper.

Click to expand...

You missed this part:

There is large-scale production of engineered flooring in America, but it is almost entirely low-end commodity production. Further, a substantial volume of what is identified as American-made engineered flooring is produced using prison labor. And while I appreciate what good prison industry programs accomplish, the fact that subsidized labor is a necessary component of U.S. flooring manufacturing gives a clue as to why products continue to be made elsewhere.

Shall I say Labour Camp?

Anlsvrthng said:

I m sorry , mate, but what is the propaganda?
The article about the importance of quality goods from China from a major newspaper, supporting the elitist view of westerners about the bad and counterproductive trade war with China, or ?

This is a nice piece of propaganda , try to convince the average USA citizen about how bad is the trade war with chin for him. : D

Click to expand...

And why should it be propaganda typical of western denial if they don' t like what they see the said propaganda or brainwashing
This comment is sample of what was said during trade war hearing conducted by the trade off ice of lighthizer
Can you read!. But Lightizer and his cohort couldn't care less because they are driven by hate and ideology
Nearly 4,000 comments have been sent to the office of US trade representative Robert Lighthizer, most of them seeking to get categories of products off the list, arguing that many of the proposed tariffs will lead to higher prices for consumers—or worse, to their businesses failing—because of their inability to source good alternatives in a timely fashion. Selected businesses and trade groups spoke before Lighthizer in over a week of hearings that started Aug. 20 and have produced some 500 pages of transcripts per day.

The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

offer a glimpse into multiple corners of the US economy that stand to be affected if the trade war deepens drastically. Over and over again, many US businesses echoed a common refrain: Nobody does what we need better than China.

Anlsvrthng said:

I wrote that doesn't matter who is the controlling class, somebody from US, from billionaires, politician and so on, they will seek they own interest, not the interest of the majority..

Click to expand...

And that is wrong. It is only in your imagination that the ruling class has no pride in their own nationality. It is unsupported by any evidence at all. May Chinese billionaires contribute huge funds for various goals in China be it from paving roads (the village my grandfather came from was paved into a city by donations of a billionaire who hailed from there) to making semiconductors. The truth is, the American ruling class would like to keep America on top so that their children inherit the world in a position of power and the Chinese ruling class would like to put China on top to do the same. It is only in extreme capitalist propaganda that you can imagine that no one has any love for his country but only wants to serve selfish personal interests.

Anlsvrthng said:

YOU want to take it as there is no problem if the USA controlling china and so on: P But that is straw man argument.

Click to expand...

It was you who said, "Maybe the natural way of things is that the USA is the controlling party in this relationship, and China is the subordinate." Quoted from link below.
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/trade-war-with-china.t8265/page-175#post-521634
Are you so stupid that you forgot what you had said and then would accuse others of a straw man argument when they argue against exactly what you said?? Do you have brain cancer??

The biggest straw man argument I have seen here is you pretending that other people have said that corruption is not important to a country's progress when we have simply said that enriching its citizens are also important.

Anlsvrthng said:

I don't want to offend you, but Japan went thought of this economical growing stage between 1880-1940.

Click to expand...

You offend only your own credibility over and over. If that is what you meant then your comparison is even more stupid because it means that since Japan's growth could only be stopped by destroying it in war then in order for China to suffer the same fate as Japan, it would take nothing short of a crippling defeat in a world war... in a world full of nuclear weapons. Quite frankly, in a world of MAD, the ship has sailed on what happened to Japan.

Anlsvrthng said:

Sorry, you want to have faith about that China is different. : ) However beyond the faith, why should be China different ? : )

Click to expand...

I have faith in trends and observations. A better question is why should China be the same when so many things about China are different? The similarities you point out between China and other countries are so vague (both had strong GDP growth) that it is like saying that wolf and sheep are the same species because they both breathe air and walk on 4 legs. To put it bluntly, your attempts to compare China to other countries based on vague similarities (probably shared by many many more countries) is stupid. All of the details are different so naturally, China is different.

manqiangrexue said:

I have faith in trends and observations. A better question is why should China be the same when so many things about China are different? The similarities you point out between China and other countries are so vague (both had strong GDP growth) that it is like saying that wolf and sheep are the same species because they both breathe air and walk on 4 legs. To put it bluntly, your attempts to compare China to other countries based on vague similarities (probably shared by many many more countries) is stupid. All of the details are different so naturally, China is different.

Click to expand...

He has been trying to say China is the same as Nazi Germany

plawolf said:

You seem to think you picked a pretty extreme example to illustrate your point, when in fact you have done the exact opposite. This pretty much tells me that you have very little actual experience or schooling in economics or finance, since anyone used to dealing with numbers would see how self defeating your extreme example would be at a glance, without even needing to take the 30 seconds to do the math.

Starting at $0.25 and with a modest 2% constant annual inflation to make the maths easier, you get to $91.37 after 300 years with just inflastion. The fact that a haircut is only $20-30 is in fact the productively gain you keep talking about, but which seems to have zero understanding of

Could you please just do yourself a favour and do the least research to learn what it is you are talking about before saying it?

Every example above is where things have gotten less, not more expensive over time, yes, as a result of real productivity gains (which, since you seem completely oblivious, means getting the same or more output with less inputs. Getting the same output for more cost is the very definition of inflation).

People’s live styles have massively improved over the years because technology has allowed us to make more things with less time and resources used. That’s productivity gains.

Even your much overused barber example fits this trend, since I used current historically low inflation as a baseline, whereas in reality inflation was way more than 2% on average.

The fact that the barber has been able to keep his prices way below inflation is an example of productivity gains being passed on to the consumer, allowing them to get more for their money.

Click to expand...

I used the barber because technology has not changed much over the centuries. Some barber shop still used the same equipment as they do back in the day. The point I am making is that someone could be doing identical things, and be considered more productive due to the environment he is in. Of course in economic terms this is due to productivity gain over the centuries. But this is productivity gain achieved by other professions, not the barber, The Barber still cuts the same number of hairs using the same equipment. However, he has a better standard of living and is considered to be more productive due to his peers being more productive.

plawolf said:

This smacks of typical western arrogance in thinking their own past experience is the only correct way to do things.

First of all, you do realise that not all infrastructure is equal right? Building a rudimentary railway line able to take ancient slow trains does not yield anything like the same economic benefit as a modern, state of the art high speed rail line.

Same with roads, airports, ports and even buildings.

Secondly, infrastructure is not something you only need to build once. It decays and degrades, and eventually needs replacing from just normal wear and tear.

Cutting infrastructure spending is penny pinching and kicking the can down the road. Just look at the tragedy of the recent Italian bridge collapse, and the mammoth scale of infrastructure in dire need of repair and replacement the ensuring investigation is revealing.

It’s a similar picture in the US and other countries who think infrastructure building is only supposed to be for developing economies.

Lastly, much of the debt China took on in the aftermath of the western financial crisis was to stabilise the world economy. Not just China’s.

China’s current national debt is massively inflated because of that need to clean up the west’s mess.

But even with that massive debt pile inflating the figures, China’s position is positively enviable compared to the west. Especially since pretty much all of that debt is as a result of investment, which will yield a return, as opposed to consumption in the west’s case.



Yet more egotistical western exceptionalism, it was not that long ago that prominent western leaders and academics were predicting how China would not amount to much for much the same made up excuses.

Go do some basic research and you will see that the BRI is already yielding significant economic gains, especially where it is directly connected to China already.

Click to expand...

I think you failed to understand the concept of balance. Conceptually, investment is always good because it enhances your productivity in the future. So more investment is always better, right? And the more wizbang the device the better, right?

Supposed you came up with a transporter that can transport a person or a goat from one place to another within a 5000 square mile area in less than a second. It cost 10 billion to build and lasts for 10 years. There is a $1.00 cost each time it is used. For the African nation of Zamunda, a goat herding country, this would be a disaster investment. For the next ten years, it does not improve the productivity of goat herding much. The cost per use is too prohibitive for the goat herders to pay. So it sits there, seldom used and after 10 years,. it is removed without adding to the economy. The goat herders cannot get themselves to be electrical engineers or bond traders in the next ten years. Since it was recently discovered that Zamunda has a lot of coal deposits, it may turned out that a coal power rail road would do a lot more good for the nation. The same transporter would be a bonanza in the San Francisco Bay Area. With the average houses costing over a million dollars, this device would allow someone living in Stockton to commute to work and productivity would increase so much that it will pay for the device many fold. In a century, when the nation of Zamunda becomes a nation of bond traders and electrical engineers and the property prices shoots over a million each, it would then make sense to invest in a transporter.

Chinese GM soybeans in Argentina expected to fill import gap
By Yin Han Source:Global Times Published: 2018/9/9 23:28:40

Planting soybean in foreign countries could provide a hand-up for China in the face of the ongoing trade war with the US, said an expert, as a China-developed genetically modified (GM) soybean may soon receive approval for commercial cultivation in Argentina this year.

China does not allow GM soybean to be planted in China but developing GM seeds and importing certain types of GM crops are not prohibited.

The GM soybean, developed by Da Bei Nong Group, a Beijing-based high-tech agriculture company, has been engineered to tolerate a pesticide and an herbicide, Science and Technology Daily reported on Sunday.

The soybean will undergo a 60-day public consultancy period and a registration period by Argentina. If all goes well, it could receive formal approval in Argentina by November, the report said.

"It is a cheery development that China's local biotechnological products can participate in international market competition, although they are not yet able to realize industrialization in China," Jiang Tao, a senior engineer from the Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, was quoted by the newspaper as saying.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

spokesperson Pan Xianzeng reiterated at a press event on the sidelines of the annual session of the 13th National People's Congress in Beijing in March that China has not approved GM crops to be grown for food.

Luo Yunbo, a professor of food science at China Agricultural University, told the Global Times on Sunday that most of Argentina's soybean corp is exported to China, and that is likely to included the China-developed GM variety.

Other experts see a business model that could give China an advantage in its trade friction with the US.

China is able to make good use of land in other countries to boost soybean sources, Bai Ming, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, told the Global Times on Sunday.

China imported 8 million tons of soybeans in July, down 20.6 percent from a year earlier in the face of an ongoing soybean standoff with the US, according to data released by the China's General Administration of Customs.

Though the business model was not particularly designed to resist the current trade war, it could increase China's confidence, Bai said.

Click to expand...

JsCh, Today at 5:57 AM

JsCh said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

news for Hendrik... Aug 18, 2018

Hendrik_2000 said:

And they use GMO the Russian does not use that healthier

Click to expand...

@Jura and @Hendrik_2000
I think in China, the GMO soybean only use for animal feed and/or oil, not for human consumption

reservior dogs said:

I used the barber because technology has not changed much over the centuries. Some barber shop still used the same equipment as they do back in the day. The point I am making is that someone could be doing identical things, and be considered more productive due to the environment he is in. Of course in economic terms this is due to productivity gain over the centuries. But this is productivity gain achieved by other professions, not the barber, The Barber still cuts the same number of hairs using the same equipment. However, he has a better standard of living and is considered to be more productive due to his peers being more productive.

Click to expand...

I honestly cannot understand why it is so hard for you to grasp the very simple basic economic principle that price or the ‘environment’ has nothing to do with productivity. The only factors that counts when calculating productivity are inputs and outputs, with technology or skill being the reason for productivity gains.

I even mathematically proven that pure inflation would be more than accounted for the price increase over time you used as an example, with the cost savings compared to inflation down to actual productivity gains, such as using electric clippers with guiders, better techiques etc. Yet you still cling to your nonsensical, illogical and completely made up perversion of basic economic principles. You are behaving pretty much exactly like a certain someone on my ignore list who does the same thing.

I think you failed to understand the concept of balance.

Click to expand...

Unsurprising since it doesn’t exist and is something you have just made up on a whim to lend your ideas more weight.

Conceptually, investment is always good because it enhances your productivity in the future. So more investment is always better, right? And the more wizbang the device the better, right?

Supposed you came up with a transporter that can transport a person or a goat from one place to another within a 5000 square mile area in less than a second. It cost 10 billion to build and lasts for 10 years. There is a $1.00 cost each time it is used. For the African nation of Zamunda, a goat herding country, this would be a disaster investment. For the next ten years, it does not improve the productivity of goat herding much. The cost per use is too prohibitive for the goat herders to pay. So it sits there, seldom used and after 10 years,. it is removed without adding to the economy. The goat herders cannot get themselves to be electrical engineers or bond traders in the next ten years. Since it was recently discovered that Zamunda has a lot of coal deposits, it may turned out that a coal power rail road would do a lot more good for the nation. The same transporter would be a bonanza in the San Francisco Bay Area. With the average houses costing over a million dollars, this device would allow someone living in Stockton to commute to work and productivity would increase so much that it will pay for the device many fold. In a century, when the nation of Zamunda becomes a nation of bond traders and electrical engineers and the property prices shoots over a million each, it would then make sense to invest in a transporter.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that conclusion from your example makes zero sense, and indeed sounds suspiciously like someone trying to dream up excuses to justify his believe that countries and people’s should ‘know their place’.

If there was such a incredible technological breakthrough, of course your made up country of Zamunda should build it.

Because even though they are predominantly goat hurders now, it does not mean it is the most productive allocation resources for them to be goat herders.

They could use this massive technological boost to rapidly climb up the value chain to open up other economic opportunities. Such as rebalancing their economy for tourism now that they can bring in vast numbers of foreign visitors for almost no cost per head. They can charge half the price of airline tickets and still easily break even on that $10bn initial investment and running costs with only a few million visitors a year in one year.

With such low per use costs, they won’t even need to invest in tourist infrastructure and can just beam the visitors back to the comfort of their own homes at the end of every day, and beam them back the next morning for more sightseeing.

Even their goat herders would massively benefit, since while it won’t make economic sense to move their goats around the pastures with it, it will make perfect economic sense to use this transporter to be able to sell their sheep to new markets proviously far too costly to reach.

It’s funny how your dreamed up extreme examples always does the opposite of what you think they should.

I remember when western pundits were making the same made-up nonsense criticisms of China’s investment in high speed rail, and predicting how it would all be a bust since no one in China was supposed to be able to afford a ticket.

New technologies brings with them new opportunities. If you do not adapt and keep wanting to do things the same old ways, then yes, investing in technology will be a waste.

But if you are willing to be flexible, to change the way you do things and embrace chances made possible by technology, you will thrive.