Printable View
If you mean that China wouldn't afford to buy US bonds if you didn't buy that crap, I follow your argument (but I guess they still would earn some money on the rest of the world;)), but if that's not your argument, I don't think I follow you...Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Governments have to place their values somewhere, and I guess China regards US bonds as a secure option with good return compared to risk. I guess there are also some politics involved.
But I don't see what's such a big deal! Governments buy debt from each other all the time:) It's just a way of placing their values.
I don't have the numbers in front of me but we if we were to stop buying chinese goods.. or goods with chinese parts they would be missing about 500 billion a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
Yup they would probably loose huge amounts of money. But any country that stopped trading with China would also lose lots of money, and it wouldn't have been preferable for any of the countries (price levels would have increased and hence, our real wage would decrease).
The answers are right in that article. You must have read it? Foreign investors comprise 25% of our debt and China isn't even the highest holder of that percent. If you took them out entirely, as the article also explains, we would just sell to the next bidder instead, covering any expenses we needed. The statement that China is financing anything really makes no sense. Unless you want to also say that Donald Trump and my neighbor with a retirement fund are also funding the war, welfare, roads and street-lights.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
Additionally, you have to consider the reasons why some foreign countries are buying the treasuries. It's not because they are trying to "buy" us or be able to "stop financing what we need". They need to hold those treasuries so that they have something of stable value. Foreign interest in buying value from another country is a sign of strength and stability. Not weakness.
It is only a problem if the government spends too much for too long. Or, if something catastrophic happens that causes all investors (not just China or even all the foreign buyers) to feel afraid to buy the treasuries. It would have to be something pretty damned big to cause that. Short of an all out nuclear war, I don't know what. And regarding spending dangers, it should be known by now which party wants to spend more (Hillarycare anyone?).
Yeah. And by the exact same line of logic, you can't say that this investor or that one is paying for this or that expense. Hence the silliness. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
Of course Donald Trump also provides financing to the US. So does Norway, and so could I if I wanted to (and so does China). I haven't denied that.
And I also write above: "Governments have to place their values somewhere, and I guess China regards US bonds as a secure option with good return compared to risk. I guess there are also some politics involved."
I guess that your argumentation just back up mine here:)
As long as we're all in agreement now that saying that China is financing our war on terror is silly. :)
A side note about China:
I don't understand why people talk about the whole situation about China's growth and financial ties to the US as a bad thing. I don't get the impression that it's intended to be mean. But, if you look closely at it, it is at least a little insensitive. They are a people trying to get past hard times through old fashioned hard work and capitalism.
Their government has caused massive amounts of their citizens to live way under their potential means. Poverty in China far exceeds anything known as poverty in the West. That they are reforming and growing the financial ability they need to bring their peoples quality of life to this day and age is awesome. Honestly, it seems like the most under-celebrated social movement of our life-times. It's absolutely heartening to see articles about their people marching in the streets against communist measures without violence. In this same life-time, people were run over with tanks for doing the same thing there.
There is no Chinese financial threat to us. It is a departure of American tradition to not see Chinese freedom as an opportunity of culture and business. And it is no suprise that Hillary Clinton has taken the issue up to be a 'problem' that needs to be controlled. She looks to pander to paranoia by enforcing tariffs that will alienate the Chinese. It would be a horrible foriegn policy blunder that would harm both economies.
Just the amount our economy grew in a few years is larger than the entire Chinese economy. The qualities of the labor forces of China vs. US is such that we are far more compatible than competitive. There are stay-at-home moms that invest in foreign companies in the US. Many Chinese workers are just making the transition from field-worker to factory worker. We stand to benefit hugely via strong business ties with China through investment opportunities. Those flood gates opening are around the corner for the person sophisticated enough to be ready for it.
I wish people would stop talking about the entire nation of China making money as a bad thing. I don't know how anyone can, in good conscience, not approve of the progress there. And they're doing it, in good part, through business with us (that we also benefit from). It's win-win.
Anyway. /rant :)
Financing. Putting money on the US bank account (very simplified). If you want to say that it's financing your roads or health care instead, we can say that:DQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I think it's great that China are growing economically:) (I just hope that they will start caring more about human rights)
welllll.. i think that's a bit of a dodge there. :D i mean, why would you ever specify any one country or investor toward any one expense? what is the point that is being made by doing that? i think it's pretty clear that the idea is supposed to be that we're bumbling fools that couldn't even wage the war that we are without racking up a big bill with China, which is pure nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
I do too. And they have been in leaps and bounds really. I don't know why it doesn't get more press... I guess the media doesn't like to point out the benefits of leaving communism or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
Anyway, the two have historically gone hand in hand (making more money and having human rights).
Less the fine we imposed for you turning up late!!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
Because it makes you upset!:D Nah... it's wrong to say that they're covering one specific expense, as you can't physically track any specific electronic sum of money. But it's fun though!:pQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
We have said it before, they need someone for us to hate so it becomes an us against them, because they think we are fatigued with the invisible threat of international terrorism, they have found a more tangable enemy, or am I just being paronoid about their desire to control my thoughts?:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
fair enough. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
*gets upset and pulls hair out* ;)
what about Ron Paul?
I wanna hit you...
wow banned already?
What "insane" statements are you refering to?, that Jesus was a myth, or 911 was an insider job?Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
And the sky is always blue.Quote:
A dollar is a dollar
If you invest in a $1.00 and make .06 profit you might think you are gaining.
Until of course you need to buy something and what did cost 1.00 at the time of your investment now costs 1.50 Regarldess or the reason behind the increase (inflation/falling dollar value in international value) Your dollar plus profit has a lesser bartering value then it did prior to your investment.
It's fools folly to think the end of the war will bring the a revitalization to the working and middle class economy as was experienced at the end of WWII
The end of the Vietnam war brought with it the debt surmounted by the war.
The 70's were a time of inflation and unemployment. Not to mention high credit rates. Carter may not have cured all the ills in a day but his inititiaves did work to turn the ecomony around more so then the Vodoo Economics of the Reagan administration.
The same is true at the end of the Gulf War. For some reason conservatives are dillusional that war brings prosperity (which was not true for the Revolutionary War, The Civil War or WWI)
Wars cost money, they affect gdp and they have to be paid for which affects credit ratings.
Personally I think all wars should be taxed. They say that Democrats operate on tax and spend. Atleast they are aware that you have to pay the piper and sooner is better then later.