 |
| |
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
While the U.S. dollar may decrease in value, it wouldn't crash...
|
Ah, another Poly economist. Let's test your knowledge.
If China announced that it was going to hold its foreign reserves in euros, instead of US dollars, what would forex traders do?
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
A decrease in the value of the dollar is not necessarily a bad thing, as work becomes cheaper in the United States, as well as living expenses and so forth...on the other hand, Europe's living expenses, in comparison to the US, increase (or rather, get higher than those in the US)...
|
If the dollar declines in value, the cost of all imports into the U.S. increases. EDITED to correct a very sloppy error: The cost of U.S. imports to Europe decrease. Why do you assume that inflationary effects of a weaker U.S. dollar would be stronger in Europe compared to the U.S.?
If China stops buying US treasury bills, what happens to the price of treasury bills? What happens to U.S. interest rates?
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
the U.S. is just like every other economy in the third and second world, expanding and growing rapidly
|
Really? All other economies are expanding and growing rapidly? How many lesser developed economies have positive GDP growth. How many have negative GDP growth?
Are you really going to claim that the US economy can never be in a recession, or depression? If yes, please explain this miracle.
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
only difference with the U.S. is that it is not overpopulated
|
An odd statement. Start with defining overpopulation relative to economic strength. At what point is a country overpopulated?
Last edited by Tingkai on 18-07-2005 at 19:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
No, it's a realistic appraisal of Chinese military power. The general specifically said that China is weak relative to U.S. military might and that leaves it with limited options.
"War logic" dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival, he said, speaking in fluent English. "We have no capability to fight a conventional war against the United States," Zhu said. "We can't win this kind of war."
His comment about all cities east of Xian being destroyed is a reference to U.S. carrier power. Obviously, US nukes could destroy any city, but carrier aircraft would only be able to hit cities on the coast areas.
He also said that he does not expect a war between China and the US.
"He said he mainly meant to emphasize that both the United States and China were prone to "misjudging each other's intentions" and that he did not expect that tensions between the two countries would lead to war."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/15/news/china.php |
Your arguments do not convince, but that rolleyes really smarts!
Obviously he is trying to sow doubt as to whether the Chinese would go nuclear over Taiwan. They won't, because if they do we won't spare anything west of Xian either. If they nuke our carriers we'll nuke the invasion force in its staging area. If they pull off a successful surpise attack we'll blockade them until not only their economy is devestated, but there will be massive starvation of all resources including food.
GePap thinks that the U.S. will do nothing. He is wrong. Bush has made it clear that he'll do something. Clinton sent ships to the straights over missle tests. Don't underestimate our resolve. If China wants to unify with Taiwan then the first step is to develop a democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zkribbler
Although I don't dispute the accuracy of this statistic, I find it strange.  I'll bet most Americans don't even make $40,000/year. This just shows the extreme skewing of the economy in favor of the already ultrarich.  |
Keep in mind this is the per capita...so this includes everyone in the U.S., children, babies, seniors, and retirees...and people who just choose not to work...
So in reality, the average (the mean average) is much higher than this...however, this doesn't mean that most Americans earn this much or more, rather, when you average all the pays of minimum wage industrialists and multi-million-aire baseball players, you get this number...
The average, as in the most common number (the mode average) is probably around $30,000...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Poly economists indeed. |
Mea culpa, but cut me some slack, it was early in the morning my time.
Still, chalk one up to you for recognizing that U.S. imports into Europe would decrease in price, not increase.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
Keep in mind this is the per capita...so this includes everyone in the U.S., children, babies, seniors, and retirees...and people who just choose not to work...
So in reality, the average (the mean average) is much higher than this...however, this doesn't mean that most Americans earn this much or more, rather, when you average all the pays of minimum wage industrialists and multi-million-aire baseball players, you get this number...
The average, as in the most common number (the mode average) is probably around $30,000... |
Commy, you do realize that GDP per capita refers to what is produced, not incomed earned, eh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
Commy, you do realize that GDP per capita refers to what is produced, not incomed earned, eh. |
Per Capita is GDP divided by population, however, you can use the same number to roughly get an idea what an income in the U.S. might be like...of course, it's not accurate, as I stated above, but all the same, it shows the relative amount of wealth in the US, which is higher than the rest of the world...although IIRC, Japan and France used to be higher a few years ago...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:37
|
|
Feel free to challange any of my statements, but you won't get far.
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Obviously he is trying to sow doubt as to whether the Chinese would go nuclear over Taiwan. They won't, because if they do we won't spare anything west of Xian either. If they nuke our carriers we'll nuke the invasion force in its staging area.
|
The doubt existed long before the general made his comments.
No one wants to risk a war with a nuclear power because there is always the doubt about whether the other side will launch their missiles. The cost of assuming the other side won't fire first is too high.
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
If they pull off a successful surpise attack
|
I know Americans tend to be paranoid about surprise attacks, but there is no way the Chinese could launch a successful surprise invasion. An invasion of Taiwan would require too many resources, namely ships and that would be easily detected by satellites.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Commy
Per Capita is GDP divided by population, however, you can use the same number to roughly get an idea what an income in the U.S. might be like...of course, it's not accurate, as I stated above, but all the same, it shows the relative amount of wealth in the US, which is higher than the rest of the world...although IIRC, Japan and France used to be higher a few years ago... |
No, you're making the mistake that people earn close to what they produce. That is not the case.
Average incomes are typically lower by a statistically substantial amount.
As for France having higher incomes than the US, please tell when?
By the way, have you figured out all the errors in your previous statements?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Your arguments do not convince, but that rolleyes really smarts!
Obviously he is trying to sow doubt as to whether the Chinese would go nuclear over Taiwan. They won't, because if they do we won't spare anything west of Xian either. If they nuke our carriers we'll nuke the invasion force in its staging area. If they pull off a successful surpise attack we'll blockade them until not only their economy is devestated, but there will be massive starvation of all resources including food. |
Except that nuking land targets, specially ones near civlian areas were the possiblity of massive civlian damage is significant plays an etirely different PR story than hitting a purely military target were the collateral damage is minimal.
The idea of a succesul blockade of China that would bring her down is absurd. China can feed itself, and her Asian neighbors, who have now a huge stake with their largest trade partner would not let their economies sink for Taiwan. China would still be able to import energy and goods from the outside by land. Certainly the shortage of various raw materials would hurt grealty as would the cut off of foreign investment, but the notion that the US could pull of a blockade that woul;d bring China to stavation is pure fantasy.
quote:
GePap thinks that the U.S. will do nothing. He is wrong. Bush has made it clear that he'll do something. Clinton sent ships to the straights over missle tests. Don't underestimate our resolve. If China wants to unify with Taiwan then the first step is to develop a democracy. |
No I didn't. I said China will be willing to go farther than we are. For all the bluster from our leaders, lets not kid ourselves, Taiwan is not of particular interest to the American people, while it has huge significance for the Chinese. The Chinese are certainly willing to lose more, pay more, than Americans are for it, and unlike the US, Chinese governments don;t have to worry about an electorate disinchanted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
No I didn't. I said China will be willing to go farther than we are. For all the bluster from our leaders, lets not kid ourselves, Taiwan is not of particular interest to the American people, while it has huge significance for the Chinese. The Chinese are certainly willing to lose more, pay more, than Americans are for it, and unlike the US, Chinese governments don;t have to worry about an electorate disinchanted. |
Unfortunetly for your theory the US doesn't have to worry about who is willing to lose more. The war, nuclear or not, is based on China trying to TAKE back Taiwan. In order to do this they have to take their conventional army to the island with conventional ships, covered by conventional air forces.
The Chinese navy and airforce would be mauled so bad in a day or two that it would no longer have the capability to get to Tiawan (I actually thing Tiawan may be able to do this themselves) and a weak later simply not exist at all. That is victory for our side. We don't want to occupy China. Sure they can tread water for years if they want while we bomb them relentlessly with cruise missiles and other munitions, well safe from them. Eventually they will just have to realize Tiawan will not be theirs, and they will take the pride hit and sue for peace.
And our number one item on the peace treaty is to get every one of our treasury notes back 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-07-2005 12:34
Smiley 
|