Trade War with China

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
All these accusation about stealing and forced handover were never proven or even bring about in the court of justice or WTO. It is case of defamation and pointing finger instead of finding the real reason of China getting ahead in technology How about funding the R&D for new technology, graduating more STEM and providing real job for them. And paid them well so it will attract the best and brightest. Built world class lab and research institution. And get the society excited about bright new future with technology. This Nikkei is a bit more balance In 7 out 10 important research China is ahead in 7 of them via beijingwalker
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China's research papers lead the world in cutting-edge tech

Nikkei and Elsevier place the country atop 75% of the most important fields
.
Interesting , the US dominate all except one field in the Biotechnology,and there is only one top spot that the USA occupy outside of Biotech.

Looks like the USA and China definition of "important field" different.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Yeah, right. According to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, for the China-Laos railway, China lent $465 million at 2.3% a year payable over 25 years, with an initial 5-year grace period.

This means Laos pays $25 million a year, and doesn't even have to start the payments for five years -- on a project that, if the usual
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
applies, will likely add $2.5 billion to Laos' GDP in the first year of operation, another $2.5 billion the year after, yet another $2.5 billion the year after that, and so on, forever. All for $25 million a year for a few years. This is robbery?

If the Laos deal is typical (and it probably is), China's Belt-and-Road terms are extremely generous -- they're definitely not a scam and not a robbery.

According to the same article in the first link, "the policies of the [US Federal Reserve], and the still-unfolding costs of the 2008 US crash, are likely to cause immeasurably more “debt distress” than China’s Belt and Road Initiative" (emphasis added).[/URL]
How you calculated this 2.5 billion?
Laos GDP is 16.85 (2017 ) billion, and the project value is 8 billion.

So, the railway cost 50 % of Laos yearly GDP
Additionally, the article that you mention doesn't say that the investment " will benefit because of the increased efficiency", but rather that the 1$ spend on infrastructure will flow through several times in the economy, creating new jobs by the requirement of local companies/workers, and the consumption by them.

So, the 1 for 5 should be true only if the workers are from Laos, the companies from Laos, the suppliers from Laos as well. Oh, and if the government officials are not corrupt, the economy efficient and so on.


( I suggest to read the articles that you actually link , and try to evaluate them in the context of topic)
 
now I read
Opinion: Cautiously optimistic about the China-U.S. trade agreement
Updated 2019-01-06 20:36 GMT+8
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On the evening of December 1, Chinese President Xi Jinping and United States President Donald Trump
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in Buenos Aires. Both sides agreed that it was a "very successful meeting." The two sides agreed to suspend the imposition of new tariffs to prevent further escalation of the trade war and to negotiate on relevant issues in the next three months.

Both China and the U.S. made some commitments during the meeting. The Trump administration agreed to postpone its decision to raise tariffs on 200-billion-U.S.-dollars' worth of Chinese goods from 10 percent to 25 percent on January 1, 2019, for 60 days.

China agreed to open up the market and expand imports in accordance with the process of China's new round of reform and opening-up as well as the needs of the domestic market and people. China also promised to take more harsh measures to tackle the abuse of fentanyl-like substances.

China and the United States have maintained close communication after the Xi-Trump summit in Buenos Aires. According to Gao Feng, spokesman at the commerce ministry, the trade talks have been steadily moving forward between China and the U.S. despite the Christmas break in America.

The leaders of China and the United States attach great importance to the bilateral economic and trade relations. It should be said that the trade negotiation between the two sides will play an important role in shaping the future of the bilateral economic and trade relations, the domestic economy of both countries and even the world economy. The negotiations are undoubtedly complex and arduous, but it should be the consensus of both sides to avoid causing more substantial damage to their economies and the well-being of their peoples.

A U.S. trade delegation will travel to Beijing on January 7 for a meeting with Chinese officials, the first face-to-face meeting between trade representatives of the two sides since the leaders' summit last December. The talks should be a summary and reconfirmation of the results of the previous negotiations, as well as an examination before the next negotiations.

It is hard to tell in which direction the next negotiations will turn. However, in view of the complex purpose of the U.S. trade war against China, and even the motivation beyond economic and trade, Trump's tough attitude toward China, as well as his changeable nature, the possibility of Trump continuing to exert greater pressure on China cannot be ruled out. In fact, the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou is widely regarded as the leverage of Trump's government's continued pressure on China.

Since the beginning of the trade war, China has repeatedly indicated that on principle issues, China will not give in, so the United States cannot achieve all its goals. This will force the Trump administration to be more realistic at the negotiation table. If the trade war continues, the negative consequences to the U.S. economy will be further revealed in 2019.

Taking these factors into account, there is the possibility that Trump intends to end the trade war. From the perspective of China, confrontation with the United States does not meet its strategic goal. It is likely for China and the United States to reach a compromise through negotiation, thus alleviating trade frictions.

However, we still need to know that with the continuous upgrading of Chinese industries and the improvement of scientific and technological innovation capabilities, the competition and frictions between the two countries will go on.
 
Where is the growth? Here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


See, this is real numbers and economic data. These are collected by professionals, not people who don't understand the difference between debt and net worth, who use made-up formulas that add things with different units together, and who get different answers every time the "calculation" is repeated. Oh, it used to be -16675 and now it's -6675? So cool. Do it again and you'll get +6675. One more time then it's +16675! Your special "math" gives a surprise every time haha You don't know how to "calculate" anything and Jura never said he corrected you; he said you're full of baloney and all your equations make absolutely no sense, which is also the conclusion of everyone else on this forum.

You like forums because people don't calculate these things? Yeah, that's right, people don't waste their time using nonsense math to calculate the givens already provided in official national data.
plus
#3194 Anlsvrthng, Today at 12:14 AM
baiting with "so thanks again @Jura : ) )"
which
Anlsvrthng
might claim was a joke, not trolling, so

now went through
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/sd-forum-rules-of-behavior.t7851/#post-486470
and there's

GENERAL RULES:

  • This is a professional forum. Do not make nonsensical claims or points. Moderators will remove them and ask you to stop.
I'll now report
Anlsvrthng
but everyone please don't respond to him/her anymore

LOL I guess this is our best chance
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
How you calculated this 2.5 billion?
Laos GDP is 16.85 (2017 ) billion, and the project value is 8 billion.

According to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Chinese part of the railway, for which Laos pays nothing, costs $8 billion and involves building 134 bridges and who knows how many tunnels.

The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
says that Laos borrowed $465 million, presumably for its portion of the route. Multiply that by 5 and we get $2.5 billion, the permanent boost to Laos' GDP -- if the usual
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
applies.


So, the railway cost 50 % of Laos yearly GDP

The Chinese part of the railway costs $8 billion. Laos only needed to borrow $0.465 billion and will only need to pay $25 million a year.

Not only does Laos get a cheap loan (2.3% interest), the country also doesn't have to pay for most of the project. This is what the West calls "robbery by China".


Additionally, the article that you mention doesn't say that the investment " will benefit because of the increased efficiency", but rather that the 1$ spend on infrastructure will flow through several times in the economy, creating new jobs by the requirement of local companies/workers, and the consumption by them.

So, the 1 for 5 should be true only if the workers are from Laos, the companies from Laos, the suppliers from Laos as well. Oh, and if the government officials are not corrupt, the economy efficient and so on.

No. You forget the continuous benefit of working railways.



( I suggest to read the articles that you actually link , and try to evaluate them in the context of topic)

I suggest you actually understand my comment before replying.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
The disposable personal income is after tax deduction, before interest/ debt payment / savings.

It doesn't represent the money that is available for consumption .


You mean the same professionals that created the disaster that called "eurozone" , or that created the current unsustainable international trade regime :, or that who created a policy system that lead to the 20% unoccupied housing stock in china ?

You are right, I am not on that cognitive level like those guys : )

But anyway, if all issue that you can found is a typo in the calculations, then I am happy : )

Haha you try to change the goalpost again? You argued that income had decreased. I showed that disposable income had increased. That's the end, you're wrong. It doesn't matter if disposable income includes interest, debt or savings (not sure why you mentioned savings; income can't include savings. Another term you don't know maybe?). You said income dropped by "calculations" and I showed hard data that income rose.

Uh, no, it wasn't one typo; it was that everything you wrote was a typo. Saying your equations contained a typo is like saying that a dropped box of toothpicks contains a typo away from Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Every comment, every person has told you your "calculations" make no sense from first to last number, and every time, you delude yourself by saying it's just one typo.

Yes, those figures are from professional economists, and it's basically a report of the numbers as fact. It's not a policy. That you tried to point out some errors of professionals doesn't make you better by one bit. Space shuttles sometimes explode, satellites fail, mega-structures sometimes crumble, but the professional engineers who designed them are nevertheless the only people capable of pushing science forward and are still giants amongst insects compared to those without a degree but like to imagine personal capability.

Looks like the US and China prioritize different fields? Haha Nice spinning! Like if one country gets 40 gold medals at the Olympics and another gets 10, that just means they prioritize different sports! In truth, if the US was not in the top 3, it might show that this was not a field that it prioritized, but being in second place shows it was overrun by number one. From my understanding of the world, holding a silver medal in your hand doesn't mean that you didn't prioritize winning.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Michael Pillsbury was on Fareed Zakaria's show this morning. Here's the White House's new talking point because a few days ago Trump's economic advisor Larry Kudlow said the same thing saying the US demands verification as part of trade talks. What's to verify? Verification of what? Do they mean they don't count how many products are imported and exported to and from each country already? Maybe that's just a word they're throwing out there for the American public so to make it look Trump is doing something to cover-up correcting a problem he created in the first place. Or are they talking about China developing technology which they want to China to stop while they get to do it freely?

Apple just lost $55 billion due to bad numbers coming out of China and they haven't even been hit with Trump's tariffs yet. Meeting Trump in the "middle" only allows Trump to lie about how he humiliated and force the Chinese to their knees. If China doesn't want Trump or any President or politician afterwards to spin and lie about China like they've been doing forever, China should let the policy Trump started play out so they can feel the consequences of their actions. No life line for Trump so he can spin saving the US from himself.

Pillsbury also complained about China's asymmetrical warfare tactics. The US spends $13 billion on an aircraft carrier that China can destroy with all their far less expensive anti-ship missiles they're developing. Just because the US spent $13 billion on an aircraft carrier which they will use against China, China somehow has to consider not destroying it because that would be unfair that China didn't spend $13 billion dollars on a missile to counter. It only shows how easily China will win against the US not the other way around. They'll lose on the wimp-snowflake factor alone spending so much time complaining about how unfair China is with their asymmetrical tactics. They won't spend more money to defend against it so they think laying a guilt trip on China will work. Do they think how unfair it is when they use their advance military technology against countries with far less capabilities?
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
US research is run by 50% Chinese.
US leads biotech cuz of big pharma

To a large extent the Chinese lag in biotech is self-inflicted. The Chinese Communist Part has put a heavy emphasis into traditional Chinese medicine to the detriment of scientifically proven Western style medicine. It is not to say that the knowledge of traditional Chinese medicine is totally useless but unless some treatment or procedure is scientifically proven it should be given less emphasis in medical training. The Soviet Union had a similar prejudice against 'cybernetics' i.e. computers which meant that they lagged the West in that technology for several decades despite having several pioneers in the field. There was always limited funding and what products got done were kept heavily compartmentalized so it never attained general use or economies of scale until it was too late.

We in the West also had herbalists (still do) but it is not considered as a mainline way of treatment and is typically treated as such by medical insurance mechanisms. Which is not to say that it was or is useless. Take aspirin for an example. It is a chemically synthesized form of the active ingredient in willow tree bark which provides the anti-inflammatory and fever reducing effect. The bark has been used as an herbal medicine for thousands of years. But the synthesis of aspirin allowed the mass production of treatments. Making them cheaper and also reducing the chance for side-effects. The Chinese have moxibustion. Here in Europe blacksmiths (yep) used to poke people with hot irons to alleviate severe pain. My grandfather for example got that done to him and it basically alleviated his severe back pain. But you won't find anyone doing that here now today. It is basically a lost technique.
 
Last edited:

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
According to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Chinese part of the railway, for which Laos pays nothing, costs $8 billion and involves building 134 bridges and who knows how many tunnels.

The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
says that Laos borrowed $465 million, presumably for its portion of the route. Multiply that by 5 and we get $2.5 billion, the permanent boost to Laos' GDP -- if the usual
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
applies.




The Chinese part of the railway costs $8 billion. Laos only needed to borrow $0.465 billion and will only need to pay $25 million a year.

Not only does Laos get a cheap loan (2.3% interest), the country also doesn't have to pay for most of the project. This is what the West calls "robbery by China".
Thanks for the details about the share of investment.
The other parts about the benefit of Laos:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It is your link, if I want to argue with you I need to simply copy parts of it here.

I really suggest to read it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top