U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2018, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,045 posts, read 13,255,239 times
Reputation: 13860

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cebuan View Post
Well, he's wrong. A clever-sounding play on words is not necessarily an eternal truth, even with a hillbilly accent.

There are many nations that, for centuries, have alternated between advancing and declining, and remain viable to this day, whatever the direction of their present economic indicators.

And those are typically tiny homogeneous nation-States that have little to no impact in the geo-political world, nor could they ever have any impact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2018, 08:06 AM
 
4,344 posts, read 5,280,121 times
Reputation: 4282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
And those are typically tiny homogeneous nation-States that have little to no impact in the geo-political world, nor could they ever have any impact.
Haha so true. I donít know what the Chinese think of us, but it irks me to hear the doom and gloom pronouncements about how we could go to war with China. I really like Chinese history, philosophy, and their people whether itís ones Iíve met here or when I was in China. I donít blame them for wanting to grow into a world power and a lot of what theyíve done is incredibly impressive. Thereís no reason I can see why both countries canít win and grow and prosper. The solution to everything isnít ďI win, you lose.Ē Surely thereís no reason to talk craziness about war. I will say China needs to understand that creating man made islands way offshore isnít going to extend their territorial rights as far as the rest of the world cares and thereís not really any getting around that. Itís just not gonna happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 01:54 PM
 
2,141 posts, read 1,154,578 times
Reputation: 4371
Asia is the future. That is where all the economic development is going to be, that is where demand is going to be coming from over the next century and that is where the world's focus is going to be. Simple population and economic dynamics of the area. Europe, NA etc are all has been. We've grown, we've consumed and now the rest of the world is rapidly catching up and there are 4b+ people over there about to become the new world's target market

Asia is going to drive the world economy of tomorrow. 300m Americans simple can't out consume 4 billion + on the continent. We've had our turn in the center of the world stage. We can do one of two things:

1. Enjoy the ride and remain relevant but in a smaller capacity
2. Continue to **** and moan, tick everyone off and end up losing the one thing that does matter (dollar pricing on commodities).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,045 posts, read 13,255,239 times
Reputation: 13860
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanLB View Post
Haha so true. I donít know what the Chinese think of us, but it irks me to hear the doom and gloom pronouncements about how we could go to war with China.
War with China is for all intents and practical purposes impossible.

The only land-based staging area is South Korea.

It would take about 2 years for the US to send 2 Million troops to South Korea, plus all of their vehicles and the necessary equipment, supplies, ammunition and other war materiel necessary to support them. Note that it took 6 months to build up for the Gulf War, and half of the roughly 700,000 US troops came from Germany.

That's assuming South Korea would even let the US build-up forces, and the US would have to first defeat North Korea, before advancing into China.

Japan is the only other base of operations, but that is problematic.

It would require the US first build thousands of landing craft for amphibious assault, and the US Army is not trained to conduct amphibious operations (that training ceased in the 1960s). It would take about 3 years to train 2 Million soldiers as landing craft became available for use in training, and then another 2 years to stage them in Japan.

There are currently 182,000 Marines, plus 85,000 Marine reservists who are trained, but only a fraction of the total 267,000 could actually be deployed for duty in China. There are currently two amphibious assault groups, and the reserves would supply two additional amphibious assault groups, but four brigades wouldn't last long against 5 Million Chinese.

That also assumes Japan is willing to entertain 2 Million US troops, and that's not likely.

The only other alternative is to marshal forces in Afghanistan, and then go through a mountain pass in the Himalayas.

150,000 Chinese could indefinitely hold off 2 Million Americans, since the pass is only large enough to accommodate a battalion-sized unit. The pass is less than 500 meters at some points and not more than 2 kilometers at its widest, so your frontage is only wide enough for a battalion to operate.

At most you might be able to cram two battalions together, and the rest of the units would be behind those battalions unable to engage enemy combatants.

Most likely scenario would be a naval skirmish, or perhaps small unit conflict over a South Pacific Island, but neither affects mainland China or the US.

China cannot invade the US for the same reasons, the lack of any staging area and the inability to transport large numbers of troops for an amphibious assault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 06:07 PM
 
7,138 posts, read 3,716,003 times
Reputation: 10102
Your entire reasoning is based on the foolish assumption that we would need to occupy ground in China and thus need 2 million troops. We would never try to occupy China. We could simply establish a perimeter, dig in defensively in SK and Japan and Guam, pick off their military air and naval assets, and eliminate all merchant cargo from China.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 08:12 PM
 
7,014 posts, read 6,646,258 times
Reputation: 5289
China is doing what the US and Japan have been doing for a long time. It was the subject of a book by John Perkins called "The Confessions of an Economic Hitman". It is a form of predatory lending. Foreign companies gain access to natural resources while the development bank provides loans to the government to build the infrastructure to mine or farm. Most of the construction work goes to firms from the country that owns the development bank. They bring in their Chinese/American/British/Japanese technical workers and foreign day laborers. It was done most publicly in Iraq's reconstruction after the invasion. Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and China have all tried to set up their own development bank to rival the IMF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2018, 08:28 AM
 
3,568 posts, read 2,000,887 times
Reputation: 6201
China's economic rise does not by default make them an enemy. We choose to embrace them as a trading partner or force them into a competitive state. The handling of Russia post cold war and China during this emergence really has been a blunder by the American political establishment. A great deal of economic prosperity could have been shared with Russia and China through this time. Between the 3 of us as partners and allies we really could have dominated global policy together.

Instead we choose to isolate fellow "super powers" and in the end we create a combative dynamic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2018, 04:52 AM
 
Location: PRC
2,710 posts, read 2,987,428 times
Reputation: 2462
My thoughts which may not be correct of course.

The two countries are run in a totally different way. China has huge building programs for infrastructure and there are two levels of this. One is buildings which do not last long - less than 50 years probably. This obviously helps the economy and employs vast numbers of poorer people as labourers. The second is more long-term infrastructure like railways, dams, roads, etc which are often built to last more permanently (obviously you cannot have a dam or railways breaking up after a few years). The other main driving factors seem to be the major industries like gas, oil, cars, pharmaceuticals. This is where all the rich have their wealth.

The government can do it that way because they own all the land (forever) and make the rules and regulations according to their Party 5-year plan.

So maybe in a "communist" society, it seems as if politics hugely influences the large corporations and move the country towards the way which will "benefit the people".

In a "democratic" society it seems as if the large corporations hugely influence politics and move the country towards the way they benefit. The people are left out of the equation to fend for themselves.

Eventually, both systems are all about control of us, the sheep and the systems will break down. The people will rise up and overthrow the government when it becomes too corrupt. Then it all starts all over again due to the nature and greed of humans. I really dont think there is much difference when it is analysed, even though they appear to be run in different ways. I think a lot of world politics is just jockeying for the best position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2018, 09:55 AM
 
8,298 posts, read 3,461,858 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
My thoughts which may not be correct of course.

The two countries are run in a totally different way. China has huge building programs for infrastructure and there are two levels of this. One is buildings which do not last long - less than 50 years probably. This obviously helps the economy and employs vast numbers of poorer people as labourers. The second is more long-term infrastructure like railways, dams, roads, etc which are often built to last more permanently (obviously you cannot have a dam or railways breaking up after a few years). The other main driving factors seem to be the major industries like gas, oil, cars, pharmaceuticals. This is where all the rich have their wealth.

The government can do it that way because they own all the land (forever) and make the rules and regulations according to their Party 5-year plan.

So maybe in a "communist" society, it seems as if politics hugely influences the large corporations and move the country towards the way which will "benefit the people".

In a "democratic" society it seems as if the large corporations hugely influence politics and move the country towards the way they benefit. The people are left out of the equation to fend for themselves.

Eventually, both systems are all about control of us, the sheep and the systems will break down. The people will rise up and overthrow the government when it becomes too corrupt. Then it all starts all over again due to the nature and greed of humans. I really dont think there is much difference when it is analysed, even though they appear to be run in different ways. I think a lot of world politics is just jockeying for the best position.
Excellent points!

The USA is run by big business, hopefully with some trickle down. Still only hopefully, as our worker class has not benefited enough for decades. But the main gist is capitalism/profit. More compassionate, less profit oriented capitalism cannot be centrally forced.

China also has this as they move many state run enterprises toward their private sector. But big chunks of important industries are still centrally controlled to a great extent. And in those cases the central command can work behind the scenes and decide whether to push for the nation, security, people or for the business.

Having recently raised the lot of hundreds of millions of their people, to me that means they have been doing something right.

'Second, is China a market economy? Certainly, it is not a command economy. But while market forces play a key role in many sectors, so does the Party-state.'

http://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content...LI210_crop.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2018, 10:25 AM
 
870 posts, read 372,824 times
Reputation: 550
The future warfare is more dependent on space and satellites. Military planners are more concerned about navigation, communication and spy satellites. But what about financial transactions? Those can be sabotaged during war time. If bank transactions, credit cards can not go through, economy will collapse in hours. That’s worse than nukes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top