Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy


caudaceus

Junior Member
Registered Member
4) China does not have a debt problem, they needed to invest (ie take on debt) to keep the economy growing. Also, Chinese debt creation apparently mostly from basis of the savings of the Chinese people. The Chinese people I find are cheap, therefore everyone has some savings. People in America and Canada, it is said the majority lives pay cheque to pay cheque, which is an alien concept to a Chinese, because Chinese people are cheap.


5) America problem best way to describe it is that they have a money problem. There is not enough money in the system to do what they want. At this point, they print the money to do what they want.

This is a different problem. This is not really a debt problem. The debts of America can be solved by money printing, but that is not what is going on here. The money printing is just to stay afloat until things turn around.

That is the bet. Traditionally the money printing debases the currency, which in turn lowers the standard of living for the country. America has to kick their economy into gear before the currency debases. This will be a multi-year struggle maybe a decade or more. Will they do it? Hard to say.

It is still about the people.

That is in tune with what I wrote, Chinese channel their spare money to saving account while American channel theirs to equity market
(401K, IRA, etc).

This is reflected by a huge Market cap to GDP in the US compared to China
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To be fair lot of non-US companies are listed on US market as well.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Junior Member
Registered Member

The 'Forgotten War' Might Be the Most Brutal War of All Time..​


It wasn’t until 1999 that the United States acknowledged—after a lengthy investigation by the Associated Press—that a 1950 letter from U.S. Ambassador John J. Muccio authorized commanders in the field to adopt a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The policy led to massacres in No Gun Ri and Pohang, among others, in which U.S. soldiers and seamen knowingly fired on civilians. Refugees fleeing North Korea were particularly susceptible to attacks from the U.S. and South Korean militaries under the pretense that North Korean soldiers had infiltrated their numbers in order to orchestrate sneak strikes. Hundreds at a time were killed, many of them women and children.

”We just annihilated them,” Norman Tinkler, a former machine gunner, later
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the Associated Press of the massacre at No Gun Ri.

This article was reported yesterday by the National Interest Magazine. I don't have any idea as to why.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

2handedswordsman

Junior Member
Registered Member
It is.

This is how it works with the Marxists.

They make their analysis. Then that is it.

No one listens. Nothing ever changes. And we still do not know what to do with our money exactly (many people in that boat), and we still do not know when the system will crack.

Compare the Marxists to the gold bugs, there will not be much difference, even though they coming from opposite ideological extremes.

The Marxist make their analysis, and it dies right there. That means that is a theoretical exercise.
Look mate, Marxism is a revolutionary tool. Not a tool for goldenboys and investors. It exposes the lies and the detachment from reality of the economics of capitalism, not a method to correct capitalism. Proven itself in practice , so it is not just a theory. ANW telling in common view that Marxism is not useful because it fails to warn you the exact moment of a capitalist crisis , to help you to correct and relocate your investments, is somewhat rediculous.
And it's funny in general, to see people crying about the West, their politics, economics etc but they do have the exact same mindset. Western style politics and economics create certain types of mindsets. If PRC rot and decay into a capitalist democracy, do not expect any difference compare to USA,UK,EU in global or internal governance . The ethical advantage of Marxism and consequently of Socialism is why me and you share a common interest of PRC's evolution
 

horse

Junior Member
Registered Member
Look mate, Marxism is a revolutionary tool. Not a tool for goldenboys and investors. It exposes the lies and the detachment from reality of the economics of capitalism, not a method to correct capitalism. Proven itself in practice , so it is not just a theory. ANW telling in common view that Marxism is not useful because it fails to warn you the exact moment of a capitalist crisis , to help you to correct and relocate your investments, is somewhat rediculous.
And it's funny in general, to see people crying about the West, their politics, economics etc but they do have the exact same mindset. Western style politics and economics create certain types of mindsets. If PRC rot and decay into a capitalist democracy, do not expect any difference compare to USA,UK,EU in global or internal governance . The ethical advantage of Marxism and consequently of Socialism is why me and you share a common interest of PRC's evolution
Since you put it that way, Marxism will just stay in its current state of theoretical preparedness.

The last 40 years has been the best 40 years for the unwashed masses in China, which itself is revolutionary. Everyone knows market reforms and not central planning was the source for all of that.

By the time the Marxist revolution will come, who knows many other alternative movements we would have seen in the meantime.

The problem for the Marxists is they have no new ideas.

The other problem for the Marxist is that they are like anyone else. Marx did not believe capitalism would survive, however many other prominent economist of former eras (who not even Marxist), believed in the same thing, that capitalism would not survive. In my lifetime, to this point, I only saw capitalism become stronger. With the rise of China, and the BRI, capitalism will become even stronger still.

Someone has to come out and redefine what Marxism is suppose to be, because the capitalism is unstoppable now.

To borrow a capitalist phraseology, Marxism is something that over-promises and under-delivers.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Since you put it that way, Marxism will just stay in its current state of theoretical preparedness.

The last 40 years has been the best 40 years for the unwashed masses in China, which itself is revolutionary. Everyone knows market reforms and not central planning was the source for all of that.

By the time the Marxist revolution will come, who knows many other alternative movements we would have seen in the meantime.

The problem for the Marxists is they have no new ideas.

You contradict yourself.

Xi Jinping is a Marxist. The CPC are Marxists.

China's poverty eradication effort is profoundly Marxist.

Just because you can't recognize Marxist beliefs in practice, doesn't mean Marxists are failing.
 

horse

Junior Member
Registered Member
You contradict yourself.

Xi Jinping is a Marxist. The CPC are Marxists.

China's poverty eradication effort is profoundly Marxist.

Just because you can't recognize Marxist beliefs in practice, doesn't mean Marxists are failing.
President Xi was the one who promised more market reforms, and told everyone that the market will decide on to allocate resources.

Is that contradictory?

I do not believe that is contradictory.

The Chinese adopted Confucianism, but everyone still believed in Taoism.

What is clear, Marxism is not the driving force behind China today.

The driving forces are capitalistic impulses in the economy, and outward business expansion basis on the win-win concept. The win-win slogan is straight out of MBA school from what I understand. I doubt they teach Marx in MBA school.

Marxist believe in what is material right? Well, China making all that money is material, which helped the poor.

You can say that Marxist were responsible for this societal improvement, but any ideology can claim the same that same improvement and no one will think too much about it.
 

horse

Junior Member
Registered Member
You contradict yourself.

Xi Jinping is a Marxist. The CPC are Marxists.

China's poverty eradication effort is profoundly Marxist.

Just because you can't recognize Marxist beliefs in practice, doesn't mean Marxists are failing.
China probably has the world's largest State Owned Enterprise system.

Marxist!

China probably is the only country in the world that tells its SOE go compete among yourselves, make all the money you can, those who do it get promoted, because China has the size and provincial SOEs compete against other provincial SOEs.

That is Marxist capitalism!

But that's China.
 

solarz

Brigadier
President Xi was the one who promised more market reforms, and told everyone that the market will decide on to allocate resources.

Is that contradictory?

I do not believe that is contradictory.

The Chinese adopted Confucianism, but everyone still believed in Taoism.

What is clear, Marxism is not the driving force behind China today.

The driving forces are capitalistic impulses in the economy, and outward business expansion basis on the win-win concept. The win-win slogan is straight out of MBA school from what I understand. I doubt they teach Marx in MBA school.

Marxist believe in what is material right? Well, China making all that money is material, which helped the poor.

You can say that Marxist were responsible for this societal improvement, but any ideology can claim the same that same improvement and no one will think too much about it.

You should learn more about Marxism.

Marx's theory said that human society needs to go through the following stages: slavery, feudal, capitalist, socialist, and finally communist.

Each stage is necessary for society to evolve into the next one. Mao's mistake in the GLF was trying to skip to the communist without the requisite productivity.

Capitalism is a necessary advancement to drastically improve productivity over feudalism. It is the Capitalist stage that drove China's GDP growth since Deng's market reforms.

However, Capitalism, by its nature, is a transition phase. Once productivity has reached a modern/industrial level, society needs to evolve into the next stage, Socialism. Otherwise, the productivity growth created by Capitalism will give too much power to the Capitalists, who will then set up a power structure to keep themselves in power at the expense of the masses. Decay and corruption inevitably follow. This is exactly what we are seeing in the United States and in the West in general. The US, especially, is at the forefront of this decay because it is the country with the least amount of Socialist policies among the Western bloc.

China, in the third decade of the 21st century, is beginning its transition into a Socialist society. We are now seeing state curbs on overreach by Chinese billionaires, such as the recent shut down of Jack Ma's Ant Financial IPO. We are seeing massive state funded efforts to reduce inequality. We are seeing drastic improvements in China's universal health care system. It is no coincidence that Xi has promoted a return to Marxist studies among CPC members since his rise to top leadership.
 

solarz

Brigadier
China probably has the world's largest State Owned Enterprise system.

Marxist!

China probably is the only country in the world that tells its SOE go compete among yourselves, make all the money you can, those who do it get promoted, because China has the size and provincial SOEs compete against other provincial SOEs.

That is Marxist capitalism!

But that's China.

Many Western capitalist countries have state owned corporations that have no competition.

Capitalism doesn't mean competition, and Socialism doesn't mean no competition.

Again, learn more about Marxism before you summarily dismiss it based on your own flawed understandings.
 

Top