Educate Thyself -CN.JPN.TWN.US.EU relationship in a nutshell

Politics Taiwan Politics
21

[quote=“ac_dropout”]
Would it be fair to say their are strengths and weakness in all 3 economy cited, and the none of their interested are served by going to war over Taiwan.[/quote]

Agree, so China should back off and concentrate on her own economy and her own development.

Hardly the case with the insolvent state banks - the first time I heard that it was a serious problem was in 1993. The US S&L crisis was dealt with in 1-2 years, the Chinese government has spent 12 years not dealing with their banking system.

???

Who’s buying china’s goods?

China could not export if there was no market for their goods.

22

You need to elaborate on “back off.” But most people who been to China within the past decade have seen a rapid change and development in their economy that you are referring to.

Uhm, PRC address reign in their loans to real estate development last year to slow their economy. S&L? You’re comparing a deregulation issue in the USA with the PRC growing economy based on infrastructure development. Please elaborate I don’t see the connection.

[quote]Who’s buying China’s goods?
China could not export if there was no market for their goods.[/quote]
I think the author wasn’t talking explicitly about the PRC export economy. His focus was there were various example of PRC expanding trade interest in the world and how USA is not taking the lead in Asia, SE Asia, and Iran. Yet USA has not changed its foreign policy in Asia due to pre-occupation in the middle east, which might lead to a disaster for the USA, if they are not careful about old Japan-Sino rivalry that might result in war.

But to answer your question, the world is importing PRC goods. USA, Japan, EU, South America, Africa, etc.

Businesses are gravitation to PRC, and I don

23

[quote=“ac_dropout”]
You need to elaborate on “back off.” But most people who been to China within the past decade have seen a rapid change and development in their economy that you are referring to. [/quote]

From the Taiwan issue. China should get her own house in order, and sort out state industries, the moribound banking system, and the lack of representative government. But bullying Taiwan and blaming the US is so much easier.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]
Uhm, PRC address reign in their loans to real estate development last year to slow their economy. S&L? You’re comparing a deregulation issue in the USA with the PRC growing economy based on infrastructure development. Please elaborate I don’t see the connection.[/quote]

In that case, you might want ti invest in a pair of glasses.

The S&L scandal was caused by a large number of real estate owners (homes & commercial) defaulting on their loans, thus pushing a whole part of the US financial system into insomvency. It was dealt with very fast.

The Chinese banking system scandal is caused by politically motivated lending to bankrupt state owned enterprises, thus squandering the savings of tens of millions of Chinese. There has been a few half-baked attempth to solve the problem, but given the fact that the Chinese banking system is controlled by the government, they have not solved the problem, but instead allowed it to grow.

Therefore US insolvent S&L = Chinese insolvent banking system.

That should be simple enough for you to understand.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]
I think the author wasn’t talking explicitly about the PRC export economy. His focus was there were various example of PRC expanding trade interest in the world and how USA is not taking the lead in Asia, SE Asia, and Iran. Yet USA has not changed its foreign policy in Asia due to pre-occupation in the middle east, which might lead to a disaster for the USA, if they are not careful about old Japan-Sino rivalry that might result in war. [/quote]

The PRC economy is export-driven. Therefore, nothing is possible for the PRC if they get cut out from their markets in the US and Europe. Also, Japan is a large customer.

Adding… So far I can see, Japan has not embarked on any aggressive moved toward China, all the aggression is on the Chinese part.

Also, the fool writing the piece - economist, and not really a sinologist per se - did not suggest any alternatives, but just took a bunch of poorly thought out crapshots at USA and Japan.

24

What he said. :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:

25

Ignore me if you want, I dont give a hoot. Others that have an idea of where i am coming from, I respect your opinions and thanks for your comments. In retrospect, I can see where my labeling the article “amazing” instead of just “interesting” put the wrong spin on it. My fault there as i should have realized how quickly it is to get slammed by people on this board if your opinion varies in the least bit to their narrowminded thinking. So goes life.

By coincidence there was an article in yesterdays TT concerning Japan/Twn/US relations. It covered some of the same ground from a different perspective. Todays TT had a good article on China bank corruption.

26

I’m slamming the author now, not you. I apologize for my earlier harshness toward the poster.

27

Ahhh Chalmer’s Johnson, everyone’s favourite old-left comrade. God bless his commie soul! Theres quite a number of points in his arguement I’d argue over but he is generally correct when referencing the political impasse between the PRC and the US.

28

It is driven by infrastructure development.

Japanese aggression on the Chinese is very well documented. In fact one can see the Taiwan issue was originally caused by Japanese aggression and the unfair treaties period in Chinese history.

The author cites quite a few aggressive moves on Japan’s part.

Even in recent current events with Japan intention of annoucing Taiwan as security issue for them is an aggressive move.

Kerr is not a Japanese, Chinese or Taiwanese specialist, yet the English speaking Taidu community uses his work like a cannon.

29

Kerr is a great journalist who understood what was happening in 228. I find it sad that the Chinese have made strong efforts to discredit this hero. Whatever happened in the past is irrelevent, because China is very aggresive at this point against democratic Japan and free Taiwan.

30

It is driven by infrastructure development. [/quote]

to a point but it needs external capital to buy what it needs to develop.

true
(but china is no innocent to aggression to neighbors)

[quote=“ac_dropout”]

Kerr is not a Japanese, Chinese or Taiwanese specialist, yet the English speaking Taidu community uses his work like a cannon.[/quote]

canon (if it wasn’t a typo,st fyi, i’m not one that stands on convention on the net)

31

Kerr was one of the Americans, who knew Taiwan best, he lived here, and came up with an eyewhitness account, backed up with what he got from actually trying to shape US policy while working in the US state dept. The other old commie - he’s writing half-assed comments on the Iraq war on day 1, and on China day 2.

32

:unamused: Haven’t we all learned to ignore Masao yet??

And about this article, completely ignoring which side of the fence you stand on, it should be painfully obvious that the author not once says anything derogatory, or even slightly negative, about China. Absolutely destroys any semblence of concurance I might have given it. 2 sides please.

It also points out how easy it is, for ANY side to pick statistics here and there, or carefully present one side of a story, to create to illusion of a solid argument.

In it’s rabid anti-US view rather than pro-PRC, representing an often overlooked third radical viewpoint, it makes one think a little, and it’s a refreshing break from the dribble throw out by other ppl here. But otherwise, it’s still simply a radical viewpoint full of filth, biases, and “unique” (read ridiculous) takes on world history.

33

Sorry, don’t want to go overboard on the links, just post a few here of interest:

April 2005 America’s “China Policy” Is in Urgent Need of Definition
China’s ‘UNRESTRICTED’ ATTACK on the American Economy Has Already Begun…
Only The Strong Can Have Weak Currencies
US-China-Israel - The Real Axis Of Evil
May2005 Civil War in China: The Final Phase
April 2005 report on the state of Chinese banks/economy

34

You know to be honest 4nr, I don’t think thats so much of an Indian perspective as it is a tinfoil hat perspective.

35

Did anyone else notice the timing of the yuan repeg and the China Govt (CNOOC ) making a bid for Unocal? This article: (Balance of Power) on the Unocal/CNOOC buyout gives some indication of the the ability the Chinese have to manipluate the US financial markets. Actually, this has been laid out clearly in many other articles, it is just interesting to see it play out. In fact, i read from a few sources that when Malaysia unpegs their currency (which they just did), it is a sign of a global dumping of the dollar. (note, disregard the numerology references, it is only to make the article interesting. there are some good nuggets in this story). Also this link points out another interesting fact:

others links:
China nuke threat - chinese thinking about nukes
Gold pricing (peg:yuan/ringit)
kissinger/cfr interview - what if the london bombs were nukes (also about china/taiwan)
rambling/interesting analysis of repeg

-just posting for general interest.

36

There was an interesting article in the Economist this week. It pointed out that China’s floating of the yuan indicates that China is nolonger prepared to buy US T-bonds to shore up its peg. It said that should the yuan be allowed to inflate significantly then this could lead to inflation in the States. Interestingly enough the article points out that the pegged yuan has potentially led to housing bubbles in the States and countries like Australia by Central Banks misjudging a fundamental shift in the world’s capital/labour ratios. The floating of the yuan is the first step in rectifying that inbalance but it could lead to a crash in the housing markets in these countries as the Central Banks play catch up with interest rates.

37

Yes there are many reports in the USA that the real estate bubble is coming soon due the a significant increases:

  1. Interest only loan
  2. Loan that exceed property value
  3. refiance loans used to make consumer purchases

Of course one has to show that with Japan and China no longer willing to buy T-bonds, which will lead to interest rate rise in the USA, will adversely effect a significant portion of the people holding the mortages listed above.

For all we know a signifant portion of the population still get traditional mortages. :slight_smile:

38

Whatever the case the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates owing to imported inflation on everyday goods. Well that’s what the article suggests.

39

With a rise in interest rates it would only effect consumers that hold variable interest loans. Depending on the how the rise in interest rates are rolled out, the stitution of a mass default of homeowners leading to the burst of the real estate bubble could be avoided.

But they been speculating the “burst” for over 3 years now. Just given the cylical nature of the market, the bears are eventually going to be right independent of China change to a basket currency model.

What I find more dangerous is USA blaming of China for the lost of manufacturing jobs. By pressuring China to raise the value of the RMB, it does not lead to USA filling the void in the manufacturing nor would it lead to a close in the deficit gap. I’m afraid USA is in for a rude awakening in the next decade when it realises it might not be the economic leader anymore.

Just like Taiwan is going through the rude awakening that it does not lead the Strait Issue anymore.

40

Well the point made by the Economist article was exactly that. The capital/labour ratio over the past decade has seen an almost doubling in the world’s workforce. This they claim has led to lower real wage grow in the US, Europe and Japan and the weakest economic recovery in the US for decades. So jobs essentially are being exported or at least wage pressure from workforces oversees are placing external pressure on wage growth. So the claim that China is taking American jobs is a legitimate one. If that is ultimately a bad thing is subjective.

The shift in the capital/labour ratio has the effect of ensuring payments to capital versus labour will be higher due to relative scarcity. This is the area where America can benefit as it has the capital. However, the price of that capital is too cheap as reflected in the Feds cheap interest rates. One of the possibilities of this analysis is a hike not just in short-term but also long-term interest rates.