31-01-2004 04:14									#91
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Without Russian co-operation Europe looses everytime in the end. Europe simply doesn't have the oil to compete. The US has quite a bit of oil and has a vast strategic oilfield complex in the Western US. Natural resources in the US generally dwarf those of Europe in most basic resorces. Things like Titanium from Southern Africa could be immediately secured with US initial logistical superiority. That would be the end of European competitive air power. Initial US advantage in long range bombers and in-air refueling would allow them to get a large jump on European manufacturing ramp up. US ramp up could keep Europe from being able to compete in war material manufacture. Europe just can't win.

	31-01-2004 04:20									#92
	Remove this text

On second thought I'll opt out of the nuclear exchange bit. With our pres it'd take too long for his staff to figure out newkular=nuclear we'd be radioactive dust by the time we retaliate.

	31-01-2004 04:22									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by el freako That's a classic - someone accusing me of abusing statistics! You will notice that the vast majority of my posts are to point out when people have either misunderstood or misinterpreted statistics. True, just as the US has no desire or politucal will to make an enemy of europe.

I never claimed it did. for the second time stop impaling urself on the thread title. its really embarassing.

and lets look at ur statistic.

me:china is dependant on american consumerisn so they wont like europe attacking the US
u:china has added more to the economy over the last 5 years[therefore u r wrong and china is not dependant on US consumerism]

now how many sane ppl need to examine this? I mean **** dawg. china pegs its currency just so it makes sure it has an export viable economy!

u r really sad.

	31-01-2004 04:23									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Without Russian co-operation Europe looses everytime in the end. Europe simply doesn't have the oil to compete. The US has quite a bit of oil and has a vast strategic oilfield complex in the Western US. Natural resources in the US generally dwarf those of Europe in most basic resorces. Things like Titanium from Southern Africa could be immediately secured with US initial logistical superiority. That would be the end of European competitive air power. Initial US advantage in long range bombers and in-air refueling would allow them to get a large jump on European manufacturing ramp up. US ramp up could keep Europe from being able to compete in war material manufacture. Europe just can't win.

Or they just nuke us, and we are all dead.

	31-01-2004 04:24									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by yavoon I never claimed it did. for the second time stop impaling urself on the thread title. its really embarassing. and lets look at ur statistic. me:china is dependant on american consumerisn so they wont like europe attacking the US u:china has added more to the economy over the last 5 years[therefore u r wrong and china is not dependant on US consumerism] now how many sane ppl need to examine this? I mean **** dawg. china pegs its currency just so it makes sure it has an export viable economy! u r really sad.

If I had to choose who has a better grasp of economics, you or el freako, sorry, but el freako wins 100 times out of 100.

	31-01-2004 04:25									#96
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by GePap Or they just nuke us, and we are all dead.

There is that of course

	31-01-2004 04:25									#97
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap If I had to choose who has a better grasp of economics, you or el freako, sorry, but el freako wins 100 times out of 100.

so china is not dependant on US consumerism?

or are we just buddying up? if its one thing I dislike its a cocksucking hangon

	31-01-2004 04:29									#98
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Chinas economic model is expananding off of US consumerism. The government controlled economy (yes it really is still controlled by the government) could manage the loss of US dollars far easier than we would like to think. That argument boils down to what your definition of "dependent" is

	31-01-2004 04:30									#99
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by yavoon so china is not dependant on US consumerism? or are we just buddying up? if its one thing I dislike its a cocksucking hangon

From my experience on this forum, from seeing people participate on dozens of economic threads, I know a few people here know more than others, Adam Smith, DanS, and el freako. You, on the other hand, are way behind.

China's economy has been growing 8-9% for a decade- such growth could never have been sustained simply by US consumers. China has consumers world wide- it is now the biggest traiding partner with SK- it has a growing internal market (most important). Would loosing US markets slow down China significantly? Yes, but China would still continue to grow if it traded with the rest of the world, given that the rest of the world makes up 75% of the world economy and China would retain its edge in various fields vs. Europe and Japan, also big customers.

	31-01-2004 04:32									#100
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by yavoon so china is not dependant on US consumerism? or are we just buddying up? if its one thing I dislike its a cocksucking hangon

So you prefer your partner doesn't hold on to you during fellatio. What does this have to do with the thread?

jon.

	31-01-2004 04:35									#101
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by GePap From my experience on this forum, from seeing people participate on dozens of economic threads, I know a few people here know more than others, Adam Smith, DanS, and el freako. You, on the other hand, are way behind. China's economy has been growing 8-9% for a decade- such growth could never have been sustained simply by US consumers. China has consumers world wide- it is now the biggest traiding partner with SK- it has a growing internal market (most important). Would loosing US markets slow down China significantly? Yes, but China would still continue to grow if it traded with the rest of the world, given that the rest of the world makes up 75% of the world economy and China would retain its edge in various fields vs. Europe and Japan, also big customers.

china has a 52 billion dollar trade surplus w/ US last year. china is in trade deficit to south korea.

unfortunately tho cocksucking hangons are always the farthest behind.

	31-01-2004 04:35									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Yes GePap that's all true, but a lot of the economic growth is spurred by internal consumption increasing at such a rapid clip. It is the rate of internal expansion that is driving the ability to sustain these numbers. Without that, the Chinese economic engine slows significantly. Again...this comes down to a matter of degree. Is China's economy dependent on US consumerism? Yes...to a degree. Would China experience economic colla[pse without it? Not a chance.

	31-01-2004 04:39									#103
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by yavoon china has a 52 billion dollar trade surplus w/ US last year. china is in trade deficit to south korea. unfortunately tho cocksucking hangons are always the farthest behind.

Compare your drivel to PLATO's responses. The only one who looks like an ass is you.

China has a 1 trillion dollar economy (or 5 trillion according to PPP numbers, which I have never liked)- according to you the loss of trade with the US would cripple them? Yeah, you certainly are a big economist!

	31-01-2004 04:44									#104
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Compare your drivel to PLATO's responses. The only one who looks like an ass is you. China has a 1 trillion dollar economy (or 5 trillion according to PPP numbers, which I have never liked)- according to you the loss of trade with the US would cripple them? Yeah, you certainly are a big economist!

thats the SURPLUS not the total trade.

omg u should be fired from life.

	31-01-2004 04:50									#105
	Suffering from ads?

quote: China's foreign trade in the first quarter of this year was up 15.9 percent year-on-year to 113. 81 billion U.S. dollars, according to newly released statistics from the General Administration of Customs.

http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200...0414_67689.html

That annuallized is approx $450 billion with the entire world in a year. A $52 billion dollar trade surplus speaks volumes to how much of that is one way trade. The fact is that they recieve little from the US. That coupled with the fact that most Chinese manufacturing is labor and not capital intensive then the impact would be minimal compared to a comparable western economy.

	31-01-2004 04:51									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by yavoon thats the SURPLUS not the total trade. omg u should be fired from life.

Yes, I got that, and the great failing of your mind (well, besides obviously failing charm school) is that even if that is the difference, the CIA says the US has an economy of 10 trillion, China of 5 trillion, so no, China would not go crashing if it lost US-China trade anyomre than the US would from loosing that trade, including the 52 billion dolar difference.

Now, grow up, read what people say, and have a nice day

	31-01-2004 04:52									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap have a nice day

I miss panag.

	31-01-2004 04:58									#108
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap Yes, I got that, and the great failing of your mind (well, besides obviously failing charm school) is that even if that is the difference, the CIA says the US has an economy of 10 trillion, China of 5 trillion, so no, China would not go crashing if it lost US-China trade anyomre than the US would from loosing that trade, including the 52 billion dolar difference. Now, grow up, read what people say, and have a nice day

grow up? who's the cockhanger here? I think that'd be u.

and china's 2003 gdp was 1.3 trillion. thats a lil below 5 for those of us mathematically uninclined.

and I'm not talking about china becoming backward and having 50% unemployment. tho obviously u will do ur best to imply that.

but sure u can go ask China if it wants to lose the trade w/ the US. see if it thinks that its important or not.

	31-01-2004 05:02									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Basically...

aMeRiCa PwNz j00!!!!!!11!!!
USA!!! 111 USA!!!1!!! USA!!!!1!!!! USA!!!1!!!!!

Come on guys lets sing the national anthem!~

	31-01-2004 05:04									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I don't get how anybody could get its pants in a twist in this thread

Even if there was some remote seriousness in this troll, any losing side would send its nukes, and everybody would end up glowing in the dark.

	31-01-2004 05:07									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by yavoon and china's 2003 gdp was 1.3 trillion. thats a lil below 5 for those of us mathematically uninclined.

China's PPP GNP was 5 billion. When you're measuring the value of the production, I'd believe that's what counts. The absolute value of China's production (your figure) is way inferior to normal because of the artificial low change of the Yuan.

	31-01-2004 05:15									#112
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor China's PPP GNP was 5 billion. When you're measuring the value of the production, I'd believe that's what counts. The absolute value of China's production (your figure) is way inferior to normal because of the artificial low change of the Yuan.

ok I have to go.

china has also has 400 billion in its reserve and the US has been the #1 investor in china the last 3 years.

	31-01-2004 05:19									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor I don't get how anybody could get its pants in a twist in this thread Even if there was some remote seriousness in this troll, any losing side would send its nukes, and everybody would end up glowing in the dark.

I don't know... in Red Dawn they didn't, cuz it was on US soil and the Russians and, erm, Nicaraguans (ooh, scary), uh, didn't want to.

jon.

	31-01-2004 05:27									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by yavoon china has also has 400 billion in its reserve

Yep. The Bank of China buys dollars like there is no tomorrow because this is the only direct way it has to slow down the relative fall of the dollar, that will end up hurting China's competitiveness.

quote: and the US has been the #1 investor in china the last 3 years.

Yes. Since you have the most powerful national economy in the world, it's hardly a surprise. What exactly is your point here?

	31-01-2004 05:48									#115
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

as an american, i am all for it. it is obvious to me that my fellow citizens are too deluded to ever free themselves of tyrannical leadership, so i would welcome a foreign power to stop the madness...

and you forgot among your justifications ... it would be "preemptive self-defense"! after all america has weapons, so theyre obviously a grave and gathering danger to europe. it would be just as 'right' as our invasion.

	31-01-2004 05:48									#116
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by yavoon thats the SURPLUS not the total trade. omg u should be fired from life.

the surplus is closer to 100 billion, and thats actually quite close to the total trade number since they don't actually buy anything from us.

	31-01-2004 05:50									#117
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by yavoon who's the cockhanger here? I think that'd be u.

Bloody hell, it's wonderful to see GePap get you foaming at the mouth like that

quote: Originally posted by yavoon and china's 2003 gdp was 1.3 trillion. thats a lil below 5 for those of us mathematically uninclined.

I will give you a remedial lession in the international comparison of economies.
Purchasing power parities (which is where the $5trn figure comes from) are an attempt to equalize the price levels across economies - if you've been to mexico surely you noticed that things tended to be cheaper there, that is because of an undervalued currency.
As a general rule the poorer the country the more undervalued it's currency (as less of it's 'economy' is linked into the capitalist international economy).
No one is suggesting that the Yuan is not massively undervalued - indeed if the Chinese lifted the peg by 25% would that really make the average chinese 25% richer?

BTW China's GDP last year (when converted using exchange rates) was $1.6trn, $1.4trn in the 'mainland' and $0.2trn from Hong Kong and Macao.
So even the figures you are quoting are wrong

quote: Originally posted by yavoon but sure u can go ask China if it wants to lose the trade w/ the US. see if it thinks that its important or not.

Well would the US like to lose it's trade with china? I think not either. (and if you think it would make the US $52bn a year better off you are really showing your economic ignorance)
In fact the Chinese government has the US a bit over a barrel as it is the BOC's support (along with the BOJ) that is keeping the dollar from collapse - such a collapse would mean that Americans would have to start living within their means again (instead of spending $105 for every $100 they make) which would lead to a very nasty recession in the US (not as bad as Argentina's but probably equivalent to the 1981-82 recession).

	31-01-2004 05:51									#118
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And for the nuclear exchange, we are slowly creeping up BMD stuff. we had 5 out of 8 successes in the last 2 or so years, and will start deploying the integrated system for tracking icbms around 2005-2006. So in the event we go to such a war I'd expect interceptor production to ramp up.

However, such a war is highly unlikely, as the Europeans aren't that unified.

	31-01-2004 06:03									#119
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by el freako Bloody hell, it's wonderful to see GePap get you foaming at the mouth like that I will give you a remedial lession in the international comparison of economies. Purchasing power parities (which is where the $5trn figure comes from) are an attempt to equalize the price levels across economies - if you've been to mexico surely you noticed that things tended to be cheaper there, that is because of an undervalued currency. As a general rule the poorer the country the more undervalued it's currency (as less of it's 'economy' is linked into the capitalist international economy). No one is suggesting that the Yuan is not massively undervalued - indeed if the Chinese lifted the peg by 25% would that really make the average chinese 25% richer? BTW China's GDP last year (when converted using exchange rates) was $1.6trn, $1.4trn in the 'mainland' and $0.2trn from Hong Kong and Macao. So even the figures you are quoting are wrong Well would the US like to lose it's trade with china? I think not either. (and if you think it would make the US $52bn a year better off you are really showing your economic ignorance) In fact the Chinese government has the US a bit over a barrel as it is the BOC's support (along with the BOJ) that is keeping the dollar from collapse - such a collapse would mean that Americans would have to start living within their means again (instead of spending $105 for every $100 they make) which would lead to a very nasty recession in the US (not as bad as Argentina's but probably equivalent to the 1981-82 recession).

as we talked about in the other thread, if China makes the slightest hint of a move towards liquidating all of its Dollars/US debt, so will everyone else. There is about 1 Trillion in US debt and probably a comparable numberi n dollar hoards outstanding, it would be mutual suicide to do so if they are acting from a purely economic perspective, if they are not however, then they would pile on as Europe attacked us.

Also if other countries stopped buying our debt it would pretty much mean an end to non-discretionary spending, unless anyone here thinks anyone can be elected on a "raise taxes by 1 trillion dollars" platform. Right now more US debt is in the US but that will change over time.

	31-01-2004 06:07									#120
	Suffering from ads?

But like you said we have world wide power, not to mention incontravertable naval superiority. What do you plan on building your weapons with, or for that matter feeding your people?

It takes an average of 7-12 years to design a military aircraft. 3 years to build an aircraft carrier (not sure what you would put on it though) and 1.2 to train the average Western grunt. You'd be building up for a very long time.

Meanwhile the war would be over in less than a year. It is not feasable for a war of that scale using modern weapons to last more than that.

Of course we don't actually have to invade, just outflank France so they feel hopeless and surrender (as someone else said).