The Crisis of 2020 will probably see China's communist government fall.

I don't think so - unless they
1. lose a war
2. have an economic collapse

I talked to some students from China today who basically confirmed what I'd been reading and thinking - they don't care about democracy so long as the economic keeps growing. What makes you think it will fall

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

The Crisis of 2020 will probably see China's communist government fall.

Yes because...

Originally Posted by aadams1980

I don't think so - unless they
1. lose a war
2. have an economic collapse

I talked to some students from China today who basically confirmed what I'd been reading and thinking - they don't care about democracy so long as the economic keeps growing. What makes you think it will fall

...they are hubristic.
China can meet any goal, grow at will, tie their currency to what they regard as a dying hegemon without negative consequences.

The corpse that they think that they will feast on for the next century is rank with the diseases of corruption. The parasite will die with the host.

Well put herbal tee! Are you specifically referring only to a scenario where we default on our debt and they lose on all their investments here, or other scenarios as well?

The question is (I don't know who said this) if you owe the bank most of the money it has leant out, does the bank own you, or do you own the bank. China's investments here give them leverage over us, but it also gives us a mutual interest. However, they're dumping their debt now (40 billion or so within the past month) - that scares me.
However, I'd say their government has more corruption than ours (which is also corrupt). I feel like we could fix anything if we could get out of this debt.

Originally Posted by aadams1980

Well put herbal tee! Are you specifically referring only to a scenario where we default on our debt and they lose on all their investments here, or other scenarios as well?

The question is (I don't know who said this) if you owe the bank most of the money it has leant out, does the bank own you, or do you own the bank. China's investments here give them leverage over us, but it also gives us a mutual interest. However, they're dumping their debt now (40 billion or so within the past month) - that scares me.
However, I'd say their government has more corruption than ours (which is also corrupt). I feel like we could fix anything if we could get out of this debt.

Thanks.
Being that this is a 4T, anything is possible. China is after all the one country that could constitute an existential threat to the US. I hope that our confrontation with China, and I do expect one, will not go beyond brinksmanship.
In terms of getting out of debt, to me it's clear that at some point we're going to have 4T style tax rates, especially on upper income brackets. They will be fought tooth and nail as they go against the gospel of St. Ronnie de Ray-gun, but the people that looted America for the last 30 years are the only ones with enough wealth to make a difference.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

... Being that this is a 4T, anything is possible. China is after all the one country that could constitute an existential threat to the US. I hope that our confrontation with China, and I do expect one, will not go beyond brinksmanship.

In terms of getting out of debt, to me it's clear that at some point we're going to have 4T style tax rates, especially on upper income brackets. They will be fought tooth and nail as they go against the gospel of St. Ronnie de Ray-gun, but the people that looted America for the last 30 years are the only ones with enough wealth to make a difference.

Amen and Amen. Eventually, we're going to do these things out of necessity. It should be better to do them now, but the political pain may be too great. This is an ideal goal for Obama, but I don't see him leading at all.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Amen and Amen. Eventually, we're going to do these things out of necessity. It should be better to do them now, but the political pain may be too great. This is an ideal goal for Obama, but I don't see him leading at all.

unfortunately, this country will probably ignore the problem until we have full scale war ( maybe with China).

Originally Posted by radind

unfortunately, this country will probably ignore the problem until we have full scale war ( maybe with China).

A non-nuclear limited World War 3 is the ideal Crisis for this period-final collapse of the dictatorships among the great powers and paving the way for a global democratic government to be fully centralized in the next Crisis.

General Mung Beans:
A few questions -

1.Why would any way with China be an "ideal" crisis?

2. Just because democracy is the best form of government for us, why must we impose it on others?

3. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should have taught us that you cannot impose a democracy.

Originally Posted by aadams1980

General Mung Beans:
A few questions -

1.Why would any way with China be an "ideal" crisis?

It would unite the Millennials like World War II did the the GIs and the Revolution did for the Republicans.

2. Just because democracy is the best form of government for us, why must we impose it on others?

To slowly bring about increased globalization, economic growth, and a better future for the unborn generations.

3. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should have taught us that you cannot impose a democracy.

Iraq is a success while Afghanistan is till a wait and see situation.

Mr. Mung Beans, you and I both know that Korea and Russia would be the primary victors in any battle between China and the United States. Its not that I would mind seeing the Korean Empire reunited, but I would rather not do so at the cost of tens of millions of lives and untold environmental devastation. There's also basically no scenario where this war could go down in a non-nuclear way.

Oh, and Iraq is an absolute disaster if you go back to the beginning of our intervention and add up all the costs we've sunk into building, destroying, building, destroying, and building that country. And don't forget about the martyrs and ill-will we've created in the population, that will probably be coming back on us for generations to come.

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

It would unite the Millennials like World War II did the the GIs and the Revolution did for the Republicans.


To slowly bring about increased globalization, economic growth, and a better future for the unborn generations.



Iraq is a success while Afghanistan is till a wait and see situation.

1. War itself doesn't unite unless there is a common consensus that it is a just and necessary war. If we picked a fight with China it would not provoke the sort of unity that existed after Pearl Harbor.

2. China has enjoyed the most incredible period of economic growth in modern history. Democracy itself does not create economic growth, China is proving you can have a market economy without democracy. The masses in China are becoming even more nationalistic than their government. Democracy in China might mean a government even more unfavorable to us, just like Democracy in Iraq could lead to a Shi'ite theocracy.

3. If there was a fly on the window and you threw a brick at it, shattered the window, and killed the fly, is that a success? There was nothing about the threat of Saddam Hussein that made it worth 2 trillion dollars to overthrow him.
Even if I agreed with you, how far down the road to national bankruptcy do you want us to go to impose our way of life on others?

Not to step on or dismiss GMB, however I've found from interaction with core Millies they tend to have this Panglossian viewpoint about our country:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClz...eature=related

Substitute the word "nation" every time you hear the word "world" and you've got the core Millie viewpoint about the USA. At least that's what I get every time I interact with the core Millies. And of course the Panglossian view of war is that: "though a bloody curse, it is a blessing in reverse, for war unites the noble and the commoner, thus war improves relations".

For GMB, I'd suggest he read the short novella Candide by Voltaire. It's short, hilarious, and exposes the flaws behind thinking that anything can be the "best" of anything.

Bernstein saw similar problems with GIs, hence why he adapted Candide as a comic operetta with Lillian Hellman back in the 1950s.

So while the core Millies go out and start espousing that the US is the "best of all possible Nations" as they've been taught to do so by Panglossian Boomers, I'll just jump ahead and "build my house, and chop my wood, and make my garden grow".

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by independent

Mr. Mung Beans, you and I both know that Korea and Russia would be the primary victors in any battle between China and the United States. Its not that I would mind seeing the Korean Empire reunited, but I would rather not do so at the cost of tens of millions of lives and untold environmental devastation. There's also basically no scenario where this war could go down in a non-nuclear way.

Oh, and Iraq is an absolute disaster if you go back to the beginning of our intervention and add up all the costs we've sunk into building, destroying, building, destroying, and building that country. And don't forget about the martyrs and ill-will we've created in the population, that will probably be coming back on us for generations to come.

Assuming the war is actually a world war Russia and Korea would certainly participate. In fact I think the most likely catalyst for a Third World War will be when North Korea collapses and China tries to puppetize it but the Republic of Korea (supported by America) thinks otherwise.

Originally Posted by aadams1980

1. War itself doesn't unite unless there is a common consensus that it is a just and necessary war. If we picked a fight with China it would not provoke the sort of unity that existed after Pearl Harbor.

Depends on how aggressive and imperialist the Chinese are.

2. China has enjoyed the most incredible period of economic growth in modern history. Democracy itself does not create economic growth, China is proving you can have a market economy without democracy. The masses in China are becoming even more nationalistic than their government. Democracy in China might mean a government even more unfavorable to us, just like Democracy in Iraq could lead to a Shi'ite theocracy.

What about Japan or Nazi Germany. The populations of those countries were far more fanatical than the people of the PRC yet we defeated them swiftly and those countries are free today.

3. If there was a fly on the window and you threw a brick at it, shattered the window, and killed the fly, is that a success? There was nothing about the threat of Saddam Hussein that made it worth 2 trillion dollars to overthrow him.
Even if I agreed with you, how far down the road to national bankruptcy do you want us to go to impose our way of life on others?

I don't support any more foreign wars for now-Afghanistan is enough except maybe intervention in Somalia and Darfur.

Poll shows concern about American influence waning as China's grows

That's fascinating, I'm surprised so many Americans acknowledged that next century is more likely to be a Chinese century. I'm not suprised by the response of those in China, this generation in China is more nationalist than others.

Short article on US-China trade relations

"Professor Victor Shuh from Northerwestern University warns that the 8,000 financing vehicles used by China's local governments to stretch credit limits have built up debts and commitments of $3.5 trillion, mostly linked to infrastructure. He says the banks may require a bail-out nearing half a trillion dollars."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...h-America.html

China in Midst of 'Greatest Bubble in History'

Academic Paper in China Sets Off Alarms in U.S.

Okay, it's not China, but it's close: South Korean ship fires at unidentified vessel

Interesting commentary on China in this week's Barrons. Could they be close to their 4th turning as well? I thought the comments about demographics and also the parallel to US 1929 and Japan 1989 were interesting. I was in China in January on a business trip to try to sell into the commercial construction market there. The Chinese I was talking to sounded a lot like the homeowners in CA in 2006. No one could afford the homes, but still the general sense was that there was no where to go but up.
-----
Alan Abelson:

China has more to worry about than the barking displeasure of our legislators. For although it has enjoyed an awesome record of growth stretching back over three decades, it also shows more than a few of the telltale evidences of an economy headed for trouble -- but real trouble.

As luck would have it, we've come across a recent piece by GMO's Edward Chancellor that provides eloquent chapter and verse for that less than cheerful view. Entitled "China's Red Flags," it contends "China today exhibits many of the characteristics of great speculative manias" over the past three centuries and then outlines those characteristics. Such debacles usually start, Edward has found, with a compelling growth story. Another feature is a blind faith in the competence of the authorities. The ignominious list includes: excessive capital investment; a surge in corruption; easy money; fixed- currency regimes; rampant credit growth; moral hazard; precarious financial structures; and rapidly rising property prices powered by dodgy loans.

Of these, rapid credit growth is the most important leading indicator of financial instability, followed by an asset price bubble. Low interest rates and strong money growth play a significant part, too, in creating memorably bad outcomes. China, unhappily, has its share of these dubious qualities as well as being inflicted by a huge speculative mania.

Edward points out that "forecasts for urbanization and economic growth make for a compelling Wall Street pitch." But he cautions that like the extravagant expectations for Internet growth during the dot-com mania, investors seem to be swallowing whole China's growth forecasts. A good example is the reckoning that the urban population will increase some 350 million by 2025. Edward suggests those numbers may not accurately reflect the present density of urban areas in China because a) many rural migrants to the cities tend not to be included in the official count as they lack residency status; and b) officials are rewarded on GDP growth per capita in their districts, so they have an obvious interest in understating how many people those districts contain.

He also notes that "Wall Street tends to downplay the darker aspects of the Chinese demographic story." China's population is set to decline in 2015 and the worker participation rate will peak this year. That will cause a sharp shrinkage in the number of people who migrate to the cities and supply China with its seemingly inexhaustible reservoir of cheap labor, key to its spectacular export success.

In recent years, no secret, Beijing has built up a vast treasury of foreign reserves of some $2.4 trillion. But Edward believes it's a mistake to think that China's gargantuan foreign-exchange reserves render its economy invincible. "These reserves," he acknowledges, "can be used to buy foreign assets, pay for imports or defend a currency under attack." But they aren't especially effective in wrestling with the problems that follow, say, the collapse of an asset-price bubble, such as a broken banking system or a legacy of bad investments.

And, on that score, he quotes approvingly the observation in a recent book on China that "the only two countries which have previously accumulated such large foreign-exchange reserves relative to global GDP were the U.S. in 1929 and Japan in 1989."
-----

More here (behind a pay wall so I emailed the link to myself. This link will expire in a week or so):


http://online.barrons.com/article_em...zYyNDc0Wj.html

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Interesting commentary on China in this week's Barrons. Could they be close to their 4th turning as well? I thought the comments about demographics and also the parallel to US 1929 and Japan 1989 were interesting. I was in China in January on a business trip to try to sell into the commercial construction market there. The Chinese I was talking to sounded a lot like the homeowners in CA in 2006. No one could afford the homes, but still the general sense was that there was no where to go but up.
-----
Alan Abelson:

China has more to worry about than the barking displeasure of our legislators. For although it has enjoyed an awesome record of growth stretching back over three decades, it also shows more than a few of the telltale evidences of an economy headed for trouble -- but real trouble.

As luck would have it, we've come across a recent piece by GMO's Edward Chancellor that provides eloquent chapter and verse for that less than cheerful view. Entitled "China's Red Flags," it contends "China today exhibits many of the characteristics of great speculative manias" over the past three centuries and then outlines those characteristics. Such debacles usually start, Edward has found, with a compelling growth story. Another feature is a blind faith in the competence of the authorities. The ignominious list includes: excessive capital investment; a surge in corruption; easy money; fixed- currency regimes; rampant credit growth; moral hazard; precarious financial structures; and rapidly rising property prices powered by dodgy loans.

Of these, rapid credit growth is the most important leading indicator of financial instability, followed by an asset price bubble. Low interest rates and strong money growth play a significant part, too, in creating memorably bad outcomes. China, unhappily, has its share of these dubious qualities as well as being inflicted by a huge speculative mania.

Edward points out that "forecasts for urbanization and economic growth make for a compelling Wall Street pitch." But he cautions that like the extravagant expectations for Internet growth during the dot-com mania, investors seem to be swallowing whole China's growth forecasts. A good example is the reckoning that the urban population will increase some 350 million by 2025. Edward suggests those numbers may not accurately reflect the present density of urban areas in China because a) many rural migrants to the cities tend not to be included in the official count as they lack residency status; and b) officials are rewarded on GDP growth per capita in their districts, so they have an obvious interest in understating how many people those districts contain.

He also notes that "Wall Street tends to downplay the darker aspects of the Chinese demographic story." China's population is set to decline in 2015 and the worker participation rate will peak this year. That will cause a sharp shrinkage in the number of people who migrate to the cities and supply China with its seemingly inexhaustible reservoir of cheap labor, key to its spectacular export success.

In recent years, no secret, Beijing has built up a vast treasury of foreign reserves of some $2.4 trillion. But Edward believes it's a mistake to think that China's gargantuan foreign-exchange reserves render its economy invincible. "These reserves," he acknowledges, "can be used to buy foreign assets, pay for imports or defend a currency under attack." But they aren't especially effective in wrestling with the problems that follow, say, the collapse of an asset-price bubble, such as a broken banking system or a legacy of bad investments.

And, on that score, he quotes approvingly the observation in a recent book on China that "the only two countries which have previously accumulated such large foreign-exchange reserves relative to global GDP were the U.S. in 1929 and Japan in 1989."
-----

More here (behind a pay wall so I emailed the link to myself. This link will expire in a week or so):


http://online.barrons.com/article_em...zYyNDc0Wj.html

James50

Well we got them to agree to cover the world's debt (more specifically ours) back in 2009. When England did that to us in 1927... well I think you get the picture.

~Chas'88

V. interesting thread in light of what's just happened to google in China.

More difficult news from China. There are probably social strains building in China which we have no clue about. Not enough females to go around and the one child policy could be leading to societal breakdown. This is horrific.

One thing about China - they don't waste time. They executed one perpetrator 30 days after the incident.

AP

BEIJING -- A farmer attacked and injured five kindergarten students with a hammer in eastern China before burning himself to death Friday in the latest in a string of horrific assaults on children at Chinese schools, state media reported.

The attacker used a motorcycle to break down a gate of the school in Shandong province's Weifang city, struck a teacher who tried to block him and then used the hammer to attack the children, the official Xinhua News Agency said. The assailant then grabbed two children before pouring gasoline over his body and lighting himself on fire, but teachers at the Shangzhuang Primary School were able to pull the children away to safety, Xinhua said. The man died, but none of the children had life-threatening injuries, Xinhua said. Xinhua identified the attacker as Wang Yonglai, a local farmer, but had no further details.

China has been reeling from a series of attacks on schoolchildren, with the latest incident coming just a day after a 47-year-old unemployed man rampaged through a kindergarten in Taixing city in Jiangsu province, wounding 29 students aged 4 or 5 years old, five of them seriously.Experts called that a possible copycat rampage triggered by similar incidents Wednesday and last month. They said the wave of school attacks falls amid poor care for the mentally unstable and growing feelings of social injustice in the fast-changing country.

The attacker in Taixing, identified as Xu Yuyuan, pushed his way into a classroom with an eight-inch (20-centimeter) knife after two teachers and a security guard failed to stop him. No motive has been given. Mr. Xu had been a salesman in a local insurance company until he was fired in 2001. Since then, he has remained jobless, Xinhua said.

On Wednesday, a man in the southern city of Leizhou broke into a primary school and wounded 15 students and a teacher in a knife attack. The suspect, Chen Kangbing, 33, was a former teacher who had been on sick leave since 2006 for mental health problems. The assault left fourth and fifth graders with stab wounds on their heads, backs and arms, but none was in life-threatening condition.

That attack came the same day a man was executed for stabbing eight children to death outside an elementary school last month in the southeastern city of Nanping.The attack in March shocked China because eight children died and the assailant had no known history of mental illness. At his trial, Zheng Minsheng, 42, said he killed because he had been upset after being jilted by a woman and treated badly by her wealthy family. He was executed Wednesday, just a little over a month after his crime. Another attack earlier this month occurred when a mentally ill man hacked to death a second grader and an elderly woman with a meat cleaver near a school in southern Guangxi, and wounded five other people, including students.

After a 2004 attack at a school in Beijing that left nine students dead, the central government ordered tighter school security nationwide. Regulations that took effect in 2006 require schools to register or inspect visitors and keep out people who have no reason to come inside.

James50

My first reaction to the child killer was that he was under biological strain. It is a common primal instinct among males in the animal kingdom to kill young that isn't their own.
Combined with the imbalance of females to males in China, I wonder if it could be putting men under biological strain causing a few who were never sane to begin with to snap.