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.
Biden helped to build the Chinese monster, and now Trump will slay it...with the help of; Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Australia, Europe (including Russia), India, South Korea, Pakistan, Turkey, Israel, & others. Global anti-China sentiment is strong right now, so I'd leverage that.
Strong sanctions on China like we have on Iran for a few years will crush their economy. They might become desperate and start a war, but I think they know they'll lose it. Heck, maybe the Chinese people who yearn for freedom will help us out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma
The dems concern is how to assist China and the repubs is how not to assist them !!!
The best way forward will be by keeping President Trump in power and dealing with them in a meaningful way and in America's interest !!!
China's actions are caused by a communist controlled government and a dictator leader, and if China had freedom and democracy it would not be such a bad country.
Trump also "refused to commit to signing a bipartisan bill that would impose sanctions on Chinese officials for any human-rights abuses committed in Hong Kong." https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...ong-china.html
How is Trump going to improve China's behavior when he praises China's dictator and does not support freedom in China?
Fact is you can put major tariffs on China and threaten China all day, but as long as China has a dictator and communist controlled government its evil will remain.
Trump says "China's President Xi is a brilliant leader and a great man" and "President Xi loves the people of China, he loves his country, and he's doing a very good job." And you will never change China when you say and believe those things. And attacking China to improve republican 2020 reelection odds, will not change China either.
A new global alliance of countries is beng formed in order to end China's grip on 5G.
Whilst some countries are also considering binging home critical manufacturing such as personal protection equipment (ppe), medical equipment, pharma etc and no longer relying on Chinese imports.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 25 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
A new global alliance of countries is beng formed in order to end China's grip on 5G.
Whilst some countries are also considering binging home critical manufacturing such as personal protection equipment (ppe), medical equipment, pharma etc and no longer relying on Chinese imports.
Wouldn't these countries be doing this all along if they could have? And what would the supply chain look like?
Because it seems to me if keeping manufactured goods in house was profitable --- there would not be a problem.
There is a reason people in the u.s. go to Canada for their prescriptions ...
Also, not sure if people are aware but buying debt is profitable, thus the reason China invested in 2008 into u.s. debt and became the largest holder --- I think it is important more now, than ever, to learn where countries stand on this and how it may impact their future. In 2001 the age of an economic war began, and it isn't over, nor, is it on any ones' radar.
It is becomming apparent by their actions that the CCP intends to monopolize the control points in the global supply chain.
The CCP has defied several rulings by the international court. They are illegally colonizing the South China Sea. In Fact based on their recent behavior it appears that they are attempting to colonize much of the world if not all of the world.
They impose a life of surveillance and tight control on their subjects. They clearly have a superiority complex and do not show any interest in equality. They do not respect basic human freedoms like religion and speech.
The CCP promotes an autoritarian style of government. I believe that they must be stopped before they become unstoppable,
I will be if the USA is determined to be in a confrontational relationship with them.
CCP are dangerous and don't operate like we expect our federal govt. to. It is better to be working with them in some capacity then being antagonistic.
I suspect we will see the rhetoric from the White House toned down in coming weeks.
Wouldn't these countries be doing this all along if they could have? And what would the supply chain look like?
Because it seems to me if keeping manufactured goods in house was profitable --- there would not be a problem.
There is a reason people in the u.s. go to Canada for their prescriptions ...
Also, not sure if people are aware but buying debt is profitable, thus the reason China invested in 2008 into u.s. debt and became the largest holder --- I think it is important more now, than ever, to learn where countries stand on this and how it may impact their future. In 2001 the age of an economic war began, and it isn't over, nor, is it on any ones' radar.
It's not all manfactiring goods it's critical manufacturing, in order to end reliance on China.
In terms of pharma, the Chinese are not the dominant, and US pharma prices are mainly high due to the practices of the US pharma industry and the private sector health system.
It's not all manfactiring goods it's critical manufacturing, in order to end reliance on China.
In terms of pharma, the Chinese are not the dominant, and US pharma prices are mainly high due to the practices of the US pharma industry and the private sector health system.
This is a great point. The pharma industry has engaged in pricing practices here in the US that have warped and twisted the entire market. This needs to be addressed and reformed before this issue can properly be resolved.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 25 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Wouldn't these countries be doing this all along if they could have? And what would the supply chain look like?
Because it seems to me if keeping manufactured goods in house was profitable --- there would not be a problem.
There is a reason people in the u.s. go to Canada for their prescriptions ...
Also, not sure if people are aware but buying debt is profitable, thus the reason China invested in 2008 into u.s. debt and became the largest holder --- I think it is important more now, than ever, to learn where countries stand on this and how it may impact their future. In 2001 the age of an economic war began, and it isn't over, nor, is it on any ones' radar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
It's not all manfactiring goods it's critical manufacturing, in order to end reliance on China.
In terms of pharma, the Chinese are not the dominant, and US pharma prices are mainly high due to the practices of the US pharma industry and the private sector health system.
In the 1920's there wasn't a big global market, all was well, it was the roaring 20s ... the Great Depression era hit, which was a global phenomenon ... countries increased their distribution globally and companies (ag - manufacturing) expanded their supply chain. The u.s. was producing more goods than they could (consume) sell at home --- but they were also, going in to more (credit/capital) debt and so was/is the federal government ... companies moved businesses over seas which has created more imported items than exported items --- companies making stuff off shore and shipping 'em (globally) back home.
Labor wages are high in the u.s. (Pharma too) because for some odd reason the workers in America believe they should be paid their value --- that is the largest chunk of this pie to solve in getting more goods manufactured in-house rather than abroad.
Obama use to say, people are making too much money (reference drs and medical), I thought that an odd thing for him to say. Pharma isn't regulated, the government believes capitalism will sort that industry out. I believe in the spirit of it, but the end result hasn't changed.
Cutting a supply chain to where one produces and sells majority in-house, imo, I see the Great Depression era repeat.
In the 1920's there wasn't a big global market, all was well, it was the roaring 20s ... the Great Depression era hit, which was a global phenomenon ... countries increased their distribution globally and companies (ag - manufacturing) expanded their supply chain. The u.s. was producing more goods than they could (consume) sell at home --- but they were also, going in to more (credit/capital) debt and so was/is the federal government ... companies moved businesses over seas which has created more imported items than exported items --- companies making stuff off shore and shipping 'em (globally) back home.
Labor wages are high in the u.s. (Pharma too) because for some odd reason the workers in America believe they should be paid their value --- that is the largest chunk of this pie to solve in getting more goods manufactured in-house rather than abroad.
Obama use to say, people are making too much money (reference drs and medical), I thought that an odd thing for him to say. Pharma isn't regulated, the government believes capitalism will sort that industry out. I believe in the spirit of it, but the end result hasn't changed.
Cutting a supply chain to where one produces and sells majority in-house, imo, I see the Great Depression era repeat.
I’m not sure if pharmaceutical manufacturing is labor intensive although lower profit margins on generic drugs seem to be the reason drug companies prefer to focus on pricier patented drugs.
There’s a bigger problem shifting back manufacturing:
Quote:
Big Pharma has expressed concern about an abrupt shift back to the U.S. of their supply chains, in light of potentially costly and time-consuming regulatory requirements. The facilities that manufacture API require strict regulatory approvals in the highly regulated industry. “They tend to take several years to stand up, not one year or two years or months or weeks,” said Ashton.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRma) spokesperson Nicole Longo told VOA in an email that “building a new biopharmaceutical manufacturing facility can take 5 to 10 years on average before it is operational and can cost as much as $2 billion.”
The government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced April 7 that it would provide $2 billion in subsidies to help Japanese companies move their supply chains back to Japan. On May 12, the government announced that it has begun to work with more than 400 domestic firms to bolster production at home.
They didn’t waste any time.
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.
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.
The CCP
