Petrodollar

[Fbolt]

This is what I don't get in your post Lax...

#1: Yeah China has been engaged in "cyber war" but so has the US. I have actually been flabbergasted by what has recently come out about how the US "spies" on their friends and on their citizens.

#2: Russia and China aren't governed by a bunch of idiots that want to end modern civilization. Yes, they have been bullies at times but then again so has the US. I would also argue that lately the US has been the bully and that Russia has just been standing up for itself.

living in Candy Land.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens when the advantage China's cheap labor has over America's expensive worker ceases to be, because they both will be beaten by automation. It's already happening now, and I haven't seen a projection saying technology is supposed to get suddenly dumber. What happens to China's economy when corporations don't need, say, half of the Chinese workers that they do now? China's economy demands high growth or else they're in major trouble; the high growth simply won't keep up.

What happens if, in twenty years, battery breakthroughs combined with with continued solar power progress render fossil fuels (Russia' natural gas) moot too? Goldman Sachs claims that by 2033, solar will be able to compete head-to-head with other energy sources. What happens when Europe doesn't need natural gas?

 

[Cackalacky]

I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens when the advantage China's cheap labor has over America's expensive worker ceases to be, because they both will be beaten by automation. It's already happening now, and I haven't seen a projection saying technology is supposed to get suddenly dumber. What happens to China's economy when corporations don't need, say, half of the Chinese workers that they do now? China's economy demands high growth or else they're in major trouble; the high growth simply won't keep up.

What happens if, in twenty years, battery breakthroughs combined with with continued solar power progress render fossil fuels (Russia' natural gas) moot too? Goldman Sachs claims that by 2033, solar will be able to compete head-to-head with other energy sources. What happens when Europe doesn't need natural gas?

3d printers printing 3d printers, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

 

[Buster Bluth]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/V3M3RxzJSfU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

At around 49:00 and after he answers questions about Russia/China. I'm a huge John Mearsheimer fan.

 

[Buster Bluth]

3d printers printing 3d printers, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

haha just about!

but seriously, economies have historically progressed as such:

agriculture -----> manufacturing -----> service sector ------> ?????

What happens to a country when, before it can transition from manufacturing to service sector, the rug is pulled out from under it? I think it's a pretty interesting question, as I think there's a decent chance it happens to China. China is in a weird limbo in that they need the growth to continue or it will crash hardddd.

(I use the "----> ?????" because the US is very clearly progressing into something different, historically unheard of...just as the switch to service sector was unheard of too...just as manufacturing was too. It's all part of the same progress to a jobless society in my opinion.)

 

[Cackalacky]

Terrestrial agriculture -----> terrestrial manufacturing ----->terrestrial service sector ------> outer space service sector---->outer space manufacturing------->outer space agriculture.

It could happen.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Hey don't kill the messenger. China took our jobs, and robots + 3D printing will take them back.

The End of Chinese Manufacturing and Rebirth of U.S. Industry - Forbes

There is great concern about China’s real-estate and infrastructure bubbles. But these are just short-term challenges that China may be able to spend its way out of. The real threat to China’s economy is bigger and longer term: its manufacturing bubble.

The disruption will come from a set of technologies that are advancing at exponential rates and converging. These technologies include robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), 3D printing, and nanotechnology. These have been moving slowly so far, but are now beginning to advance exponentially just as computing does.

The factory assembly that the Chinese are performing is child’s play for the next generation of robots—which will soon become cheaper than human labor.

Not to mention, China has massive pollution problems. They have been putting themselves through the growing pains the US experienced a century ago, but they won't get the pay off. Their bubble will burst and they'll be left with 1.35 billion people and more polluted land and water than you can shake a stick at.

 

[Guest]

I see no plausible evidence that China and Russia seek to become global rivals to the US; we are at the center of the global economy, and our military might outstrips theirs by a massive margin. Most of their actions are consistent with great powers attempting to reestablish their natural spheres of influence; US actions in the Baltic, Caucasus and East Asian regions are responsible for much of the hostility.



Why do people find it easy to believe that our "enemies" are both irrational and insane? That would be suicidal. Russia and China stand to lose far more than they could ever hope to gain from such a conflict.



Wake up, sheeple! The Koch brothers have monopolized all the petrodollars!

If you see no plausible evidence that Russia and China seek to become superpowers, then you must have missed the Cold War and China's thousand's of year history as world superpower before the rise of the West. Ambitions of power are not so easily given up. In addition, you would have to ignore actions and comments currently eminating from Chinese and Russian diplomats.

China and Russia don't plan on starting a ground war they know they cannot win. They plan on using advanced weapons, IE EMP and Nuclear, to cripple the West while we continue to boondoggle in the Middle East and cannot protect our homeland. Then, they can land the troops.

Note that nuclear war is a very real possibility. Contract to most of what has been written about nuclear war, it will not devestate the entire world. In fact, most radiation from missiles dissipates in 14 days. Missiles do not radiate continuously like a damaged reactor does. Sure, there will be land and water poisoning, but that can be dealth with. On the other hand, the rich mineable resources available in the US will be largely untouched by such a war.

China and Russia doesn't neccessarily want to populate the West, although the thought of occupying us no doubt is an option. More, I think they just want our resources and perhaps to use survivors as sort of a colony to feed the motherland.

They don't want 95% of Americans to survive the conflict because it is too many mouths to feed and too much societal conflict. No, they would rather have us die off in large numbers to make their colonization and resource exploitation easier.

It is also likely that China dismisses Russia sometime after said war and tries to become the sole superpower. Whether or not they can do this is another matter. Russia would not be dismissed so easily.

Further, China and Russia have multiple battlefronts. First, they have cyber war which I am intimately aware of. I am completing my Masters of Information Security in August this year. I work in the network security field for a global technology company/ISP. If you want to know what China is capable of in cyber war, check out Mandiant's report on APT1. Note that China possess 20 such of these known cells in their military.
Mandiant Intelligence Center Report | Mandiant®

Lastly, China and Russia have economic war options to weaken the US, though they haven't needed to use them due to the US insane economic policies. China could cripple the west by dumping bonds literally overnight, and holds the US' balls in political negotiations as a result. Which means, they can pretty much do whatever they want and the US' vaunted military can only look on sheepishly.

Even the idiots currently in power in the US aren't stupid enough to engage China in miltary war when China can demolish the US economy in a few hours. Once that economic devestation happens, tell me in detail how the US is going to finance their war machine? If they try and print to pay for it, history tells us that we will suffer hyperinflation, currency collapse, and widespread economic dislocation. Our country would suffer riots, infighting, and be ripe for the pickings as as result.

I suggest people wake up and look at the bigger picture than just seeing how many aircraft carrier's one nation has as the sum assessment of a nation's future prospects.

 

[woolybug25]

If you see no plausible evidence that Russia and China seek to become superpowers, then you must have missed the Cold War and China's thousand's of year history as world superpower before the rise of the West. Ambitions of power are not so easily given up. In addition, you would have to ignore actions and comments currently eminating from Chinese and Russian diplomats.

China and Russia don't plan on starting a ground war they know they cannot win. They plan on using advanced weapons, IE EMP and Nuclear, to cripple the West while we continue to boondoggle in the Middle East and cannot protect our homeland. Then, they can land the troops.

Note that nuclear war is a very real possibility. Contract to most of what has been written about nuclear war, it will not devestate the entire world. In fact, most radiation from missiles dissipates in 14 days. Missiles do not radiate continuously like a damaged reactor does. Sure, there will be land and water poisoning, but that can be dealth with. On the other hand, the rich mineable resources available in the US will be largely untouched by such a war.

China and Russia doesn't neccessarily want to populate the West, although the thought of occupying us no doubt is an option. More, I think they just want our resources and perhaps to use survivors as sort of a colony to feed the motherland.

They don't want 95% of Americans to survive the conflict because it is too many mouths to feed and too much societal conflict. No, they would rather have us die off in large numbers to make their colonization and resource exploitation easier.

It is also likely that China dismisses Russia sometime after said war and tries to become the sole superpower. Whether or not they can do this is another matter. Russia would not be dismissed so easily.

Further, China and Russia have multiple battlefronts. First, they have cyber war which I am intimately aware of. I am completing my Masters of Information Security in August this year. I work in the network security field for a global technology company/ISP. If you want to know what China is capable of in cyber war, check out Mandiant's report on APT1. Note that China possess 20 such of these known cells in their military.
Mandiant Intelligence Center Report | Mandiant®

Lastly, China and Russia have economic war options to weaken the US, though they haven't needed to use them due to the US insane economic policies. China could cripple the west by dumping bonds literally overnight, and holds the US' balls in political negotiations as a result. Which means, they can pretty much do whatever they want and the US' vaunted military can only look on sheepishly.

Even the idiots currently in power in the US aren't stupid enough to engage China in miltary war when China can demolish the US economy in a few hours. Once that economic devestation happens, tell me in detail how the US is going to finance their war machine? If they try and print to pay for it, history tells us that we will suffer hyperinflation, currency collapse, and widespread economic dislocation. Our country would suffer riots, infighting, and be ripe for the pickings as as result.

I suggest people wake up and look at the bigger picture than just seeing how many aircraft carrier's one nation has as the sum assessment of a nation's future prospects.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If you see no plausible evidence that Russia and China seek to become superpowers, then you must have missed the Cold War and China's thousand's of year history as world superpower before the rise of the West. Ambitions of power are not so easily given up. In addition, you would have to ignore actions and comments currently eminating from Chinese and Russian diplomats.

Since the fall of the USSR, there has only been one global superpower. Neither Russia or China is remotely close to rivaling the US, and neither of them has shown any indication that they want to try to reestablish a bi-polar balance of power (which would be massively disruptive to the world economy). They have shown plenty of indications that they expect to exert influence over their near-abroad, and I've yet to read a coherent neocon argument for why it's in our interest to stop them from doing so (and probably starting WWIII in the process). This is simple alarmism.

China and Russia don't plan on starting a ground war they know they cannot win. They plan on using advanced weapons, IE EMP and Nuclear, to cripple the West while we continue to boondoggle in the Middle East and cannot protect our homeland. Then, they can land the troops.

They don't plan on starting a ground war, but they ultimately plan to invade American soil?

Note that nuclear war is a very real possibility. Contract to most of what has been written about nuclear war, it will not devestate the entire world. In fact, most radiation from missiles dissipates in 14 days. Missiles do not radiate continuously like a damaged reactor does. Sure, there will be land and water poisoning, but that can be dealth with. On the other hand, the rich mineable resources available in the US will be largely untouched by such a war.

How are they going to nuke us without getting nuked themselves? And why would they willingly choose to invite destruction upon their own countries? Because the world is full of suicidal blackhats in your paranoid world-view? More likely, it's because you read commentary from neocons who have a financial stake (the Israel lobby is flush with cash) in keeping America in a perpetual state of war.

China and Russia doesn't neccessarily want to populate the West, although the thought of occupying us no doubt is an option. More, I think they just want our resources and perhaps to use survivors as sort of a colony to feed the motherland.

Russia can barely keep the lights on in large parts of its own country, but it's going to somehow defeat the most powerful military empire in the history of the world and pillage America's natural resources?

They don't want 95% of Americans to survive the conflict because it is too many mouths to feed and too much societal conflict. No, they would rather have us die off in large numbers to make their colonization and resource exploitation easier.

And how will they avoid our retaliatory launches?

It is also likely that China dismisses Russia sometime after said war and tries to become the sole superpower. Whether or not they can do this is another matter. Russia would not be dismissed so easily.

Why bother with that little detail? The Russo-Sino boogeyman is much more effective at selling American bellicosity when it's united. Never mind the fact that they don't get along very well and have very different interests.

Further, China and Russia have multiple battlefronts. First, they have cyber war which I am intimately aware of. I am completing my Masters of Information Security in August this year. I work in the network security field for a global technology company/ISP. If you want to know what China is capable of in cyber war, check out Mandiant's report on APT1. Note that China possess 20 such of these known cells in their military.
Mandiant Intelligence Center Report | Mandiant®

In light of the NSA's recently exposed panopticon, I have little doubt of our own electronic capabilities. We're effectively spying on the entire world.

Lastly, China and Russia have economic war options to weaken the US, though they haven't needed to use them due to the US insane economic policies. China could cripple the west by dumping bonds literally overnight, and holds the US' balls in political negotiations as a result. Which means, they can pretty much do whatever they want and the US' vaunted military can only look on sheepishly.

China is even more dependent on American consumption than we are on their exports. They are not about to risk ruining their own economic development by attacking us in any way. You really underestimate the level of economic co-dependence between China and America.

Even the idiots currently in power in the US aren't stupid enough to engage China in miltary war when China can demolish the US economy in a few hours. Once that economic devestation happens, tell me in detail how the US is going to finance their war machine? If they try and print to pay for it, history tells us that we will suffer hyperinflation, currency collapse, and widespread economic dislocation. Our country would suffer riots, infighting, and be ripe for the pickings as as result.

Again, tell me why you believe that China would willingly ruin it's own economy in order to hurt us. You're arguing like a paranoid neocon, but China and Russia are consistently acting like realist regional powers seeking to exert influence over their near abroad.

I suggest people wake up and look at the bigger picture than just seeing how many aircraft carrier's one nation has as the sum assessment of a nation's future prospects.

I didn't offer that carrier comparison as "the sum assessment of a nation's future prospects". You stated that China is currently building its 2nd carrier as evidence that they're catching up to us militarily, so I posted the comparison to show what an absurd claim that is.

But you're right; people do need to "wake up" to the growing authoritarian threat in Asia. Our doom is imminent!

 

[Ndaccountant]

If you see no plausible evidence that Russia and China seek to become superpowers, then you must have missed the Cold War and China's thousand's of year history as world superpower before the rise of the West. Ambitions of power are not so easily given up. In addition, you would have to ignore actions and comments currently eminating from Chinese and Russian diplomats.

China and Russia don't plan on starting a ground war they know they cannot win. They plan on using advanced weapons, IE EMP and Nuclear, to cripple the West while we continue to boondoggle in the Middle East and cannot protect our homeland. Then, they can land the troops.

Note that nuclear war is a very real possibility. Contract to most of what has been written about nuclear war, it will not devestate the entire world. In fact, most radiation from missiles dissipates in 14 days. Missiles do not radiate continuously like a damaged reactor does. Sure, there will be land and water poisoning, but that can be dealth with. On the other hand, the rich mineable resources available in the US will be largely untouched by such a war.

China and Russia doesn't neccessarily want to populate the West, although the thought of occupying us no doubt is an option. More, I think they just want our resources and perhaps to use survivors as sort of a colony to feed the motherland.

They don't want 95% of Americans to survive the conflict because it is too many mouths to feed and too much societal conflict. No, they would rather have us die off in large numbers to make their colonization and resource exploitation easier.

It is also likely that China dismisses Russia sometime after said war and tries to become the sole superpower. Whether or not they can do this is another matter. Russia would not be dismissed so easily.

Further, China and Russia have multiple battlefronts. First, they have cyber war which I am intimately aware of. I am completing my Masters of Information Security in August this year. I work in the network security field for a global technology company/ISP. If you want to know what China is capable of in cyber war, check out Mandiant's report on APT1. Note that China possess 20 such of these known cells in their military.
Mandiant Intelligence Center Report | Mandiant®

Lastly, China and Russia have economic war options to weaken the US, though they haven't needed to use them due to the US insane economic policies. China could cripple the west by dumping bonds literally overnight, and holds the US' balls in political negotiations as a result. Which means, they can pretty much do whatever they want and the US' vaunted military can only look on sheepishly.

Even the idiots currently in power in the US aren't stupid enough to engage China in miltary war when China can demolish the US economy in a few hours. Once that economic devestation happens, tell me in detail how the US is going to finance their war machine? If they try and print to pay for it, history tells us that we will suffer hyperinflation, currency collapse, and widespread economic dislocation. Our country would suffer riots, infighting, and be ripe for the pickings as as result.

I suggest people wake up and look at the bigger picture than just seeing how many aircraft carrier's one nation has as the sum assessment of a nation's future prospects.

 

[pumpdog20]

One doesn't just "dump bonds overnight". There has to be a buyer. China can't just say I no longer want your bonds I've already given you money for. In theory, that would actually help us since we wouldn't have to pay them interest.

Now they could not buy new ones, but I was under the impression that China have already cut their Treasuries purchases significantly already.

 

[Buster Bluth]

If you see no plausible evidence that Russia and China seek to become superpowers, then you must have missed the Cold War and China's thousand's of year history as world superpower before the rise of the West. Ambitions of power are not so easily given up. In addition, you would have to ignore actions and comments currently eminating from Chinese and Russian diplomats.

China and Russia don't plan on starting a ground war they know they cannot win. They plan on using advanced weapons, IE EMP and Nuclear, to cripple the West while we continue to boondoggle in the Middle East and cannot protect our homeland. Then, they can land the troops.

Note that nuclear war is a very real possibility. Contract to most of what has been written about nuclear war, it will not devestate the entire world. In fact, most radiation from missiles dissipates in 14 days. Missiles do not radiate continuously like a damaged reactor does. Sure, there will be land and water poisoning, but that can be dealth with. On the other hand, the rich mineable resources available in the US will be largely untouched by such a war.

China and Russia doesn't neccessarily want to populate the West, although the thought of occupying us no doubt is an option. More, I think they just want our resources and perhaps to use survivors as sort of a colony to feed the motherland.

They don't want 95% of Americans to survive the conflict because it is too many mouths to feed and too much societal conflict. No, they would rather have us die off in large numbers to make their colonization and resource exploitation easier.

It is also likely that China dismisses Russia sometime after said war and tries to become the sole superpower. Whether or not they can do this is another matter. Russia would not be dismissed so easily.

Further, China and Russia have multiple battlefronts. First, they have cyber war which I am intimately aware of. I am completing my Masters of Information Security in August this year. I work in the network security field for a global technology company/ISP. If you want to know what China is capable of in cyber war, check out Mandiant's report on APT1. Note that China possess 20 such of these known cells in their military.
Mandiant Intelligence Center Report | Mandiant®

Lastly, China and Russia have economic war options to weaken the US, though they haven't needed to use them due to the US insane economic policies. China could cripple the west by dumping bonds literally overnight, and holds the US' balls in political negotiations as a result. Which means, they can pretty much do whatever they want and the US' vaunted military can only look on sheepishly.

Even the idiots currently in power in the US aren't stupid enough to engage China in miltary war when China can demolish the US economy in a few hours. Once that economic devestation happens, tell me in detail how the US is going to finance their war machine? If they try and print to pay for it, history tells us that we will suffer hyperinflation, currency collapse, and widespread economic dislocation. Our country would suffer riots, infighting, and be ripe for the pickings as as result.

I suggest people wake up and look at the bigger picture than just seeing how many aircraft carrier's one nation has as the sum assessment of a nation's future prospects.

And this brings me to my next point...

DONT. SMOKE. CRACK.

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[Guest]

One doesn't just "dump bonds overnight". There has to be a buyer. China can't just say I no longer want your bonds I've already given you money for. In theory, that would actually help us since we wouldn't have to pay them interest.

Now they could not buy new ones, but I was under the impression that China have already cut their Treasuries purchases significantly already.

The act of dumping the bonds would crash the market price. There would be more supply than demand. Economics 101.

Once that happens, interest rates go up to get people to buy US debt. The Fed, currently the number one buyer of US bonds, would then have to step in and purchase the balance. Once they did, that would start hyperinflation and destroy the overall value of the US currency.

I can tell there is a general lack of economics history knowledge here. Try reading anything from this store: Mises Institute Non-Profit Book Store

Lastly, yes the Chinese have 'tapered' their buying. They still have over a trillion of US bonds. In actual numbers, their total holdings have actually slightly increased from Feb 2013 to Feb 2014.
http://www.treasury.gov/ticdata/Publish/mfh.txt

 

[Guest]

And this brings me to my next point...

DONT. SMOKE. CRACK.

When there are no facts, resort to attacking the person.

How about you try a counter argument with some details, links, intelligent analysis?

The only question is, are you capable of doing so?

 

[Guest]

Since the fall of the USSR, there has only been one global superpower. Neither Russia or China is remotely close to rivaling the US, and neither of them has shown any indication that they want to try to reestablish a bi-polar balance of power (which would be massively disruptive to the world economy). They have shown plenty of indications that they expect to exert influence over their near-abroad, and I've yet to read a coherent neocon argument for why it's in our interest to stop them from doing so (and probably starting WWIII in the process). This is simple alarmism.



They don't plan on starting a ground war, but they ultimately plan to invade American soil?



How are they going to nuke us without getting nuked themselves? And why would they willingly choose to invite destruction upon their own countries? Because the world is full of suicidal blackhats in your paranoid world-view? More likely, it's because you read commentary from neocons who have a financial stake (the Israel lobby is flush with cash) in keeping America in a perpetual state of war.



Russia can barely keep the lights on in large parts of its own country, but it's going to somehow defeat the most powerful military empire in the history of the world and pillage America's natural resources?



And how will they avoid our retaliatory launches?



Why bother with that little detail? The Russo-Sino boogeyman is much more effective at selling American bellicosity when it's united. Never mind the fact that they don't get along very well and have very different interests.



In light of the NSA's recently exposed panopticon, I have little doubt of our own electronic capabilities. We're effectively spying on the entire world.



China is even more dependent on American consumption than we are on their exports. They are not about to risk ruining their own economic development by attacking us in any way. You really underestimate the level of economic co-dependence between China and America.



Again, tell me why you believe that China would willingly ruin it's own economy in order to hurt us. You're arguing like a paranoid neocon, but China and Russia are consistently acting like realist regional powers seeking to exert influence over their near abroad.



I didn't offer that carrier comparison as "the sum assessment of a nation's future prospects". You stated that China is currently building its 2nd carrier as evidence that they're catching up to us militarily, so I posted the comparison to show what an absurd claim that is.

But you're right; people do need to "wake up" to the growing authoritarian threat in Asia. Our doom is imminent!

The premptive nuclear/chemical/emp strike is to cripple the military's ability to respond. Then a ground war becomes easier. China has figured out that to fund a military like the US is too expensive, so they are using other methods to weaken US response so that they can engage in a more limited ground/navy/aerial assault. That way, they don't have to fund a massive military/industrial complex to build their empire. It is a quite brilliant plan, actually. Of course we hope to prevent them from enacting it.

Our retaliatory launches may never make it off the ground. We use silos, which they will obviously target. In addition, the Clinton administration ordered US silos NOT TO LAUNCH on warning, but only AFTER WE HAVE BEEN ATTACKED. The whitehouse controls the codes to launch, so silo operators cannot take the matter into their own hands.

Conversely, Russian and Chinese missiles are mobile, including a growing barrage on submarines. We can hit their cities, assuming we have any missiles left after absorbing their intial barrage. We cannot, however, take out their mobile batteries pre-emptively even if the Whitehouse were to authorize it. Their are mobile for a reason.

Most Americans, of course, think we are operating under an older response model that is no longer the case. Hence, the misunderstanding of our response capabilities and procedures.

Hope that answers your questions.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The premptive nuclear/chemical/emp strike is to cripple the military's ability to respond.

I assume you're familiar with MAD? That's how we got through the Cold War without anyone blowing up the world. If it were possible to preemptively destroy a nuclear power's ability to retaliate, such a policy would never have been possible. And I'm not aware of any new technology developed within the last ~25 years that would have changed that.

Our retaliatory launches may never make it off the ground. We use silos, which they will obviously target. In addition, the Clinton administration ordered US silos NOT TO LAUNCH on warning, but only AFTER WE HAVE BEEN ATTACKED. The whitehouse controls the codes to launch, so silo operators cannot take the matter into their own hands.

Silo-based ICBMs are simply 1/3 of our nuclear triad deterrent. We can launch nukes from subs and strategic bombers as well. There is no way China or Russia could hope to knock out our ability to retaliate.

Conversely, Russian and Chinese missiles are mobile, including a growing barrage on submarines. We can hit their cities, assuming we have any missiles left after absorbing their intial barrage. We cannot, however, take out their mobile batteries pre-emptively even if the Whitehouse were to authorize it. Their are mobile for a reason.

See above. Our nukes are mobile as well. Thus, mutually assured destruction continues to be an effective policy. Fortunately for all of us, it's in no nation's interest to bring about a worldwide nuclear holocaust.

Most Americans, of course, think we are operating under an older response model that is no longer the case. Hence, the misunderstanding of our response capabilities and procedures.

May I ask where you're getting your information? You don't seem to have a very accurate understanding of our capabilities vis-a-vis our "enemies".

 

[pumpdog20]

The act of dumping the bonds would crash the market price. There would be more supply than demand. Economics 101.

Once that happens, interest rates go up to get people to buy US debt. The Fed, currently the number one buyer of US bonds, would then have to step in and purchase the balance. Once they did, that would start hyperinflation and destroy the overall value of the US currency.

I can tell there is a general lack of economics history knowledge here. Try reading anything from this store: Mises Institute Non-Profit Book Store

Lastly, yes the Chinese have 'tapered' their buying. They still have over a trillion of US bonds. In actual numbers, their total holdings have actually slightly increased from Feb 2013 to Feb 2014.
http://www.treasury.gov/ticdata/Publish/mfh.txt

LOL, no I'm not an economics professor or anything, but to think the Chinese are going to dump their US bonds to get pennies on the dollar for their investment isn't exactly oozing "economic history knowledge".

 

[Buster Bluth]

When there are no facts, resort to attacking the person.

How about you try a counter argument with some details, links, intelligent analysis?

The only question is, are you capable of doing so?

Sure: wars don't happen when countries lose more than they gain. What the fuck if the point of blasting the US away when the entire world economy goes with it? His can you be this ignorant of the fact that wars are fought for economic gain and no country is in a position to benefit economically from fighting in a World War.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Not to mention, China has massive pollution problems. They have been putting themselves through the growing pains the US experienced a century ago, but they won't get the pay off. Their bubble will burst and they'll be left with 1.35 billion people and more polluted land and water than you can shake a stick at.

China just revealed a major state secret: nearly 20% of its farmland is polluted – Quartz

Almost one-fifth of China’s farmland is polluted, according to a government report released this week. Officials have acknowledged the country’s problems with water and air pollution, but the extent of soil contamination has been a closely guarded “state secret,” for fear of incriminating certain provinces or companies.
+

About 19.4% of China’s farmland is polluted by cadmium, nickel and arsenic, according to the seven-year study that analyzed a little over half of China’s entire land area.

 

[woolybug25]

China just revealed a major state secret: nearly 20% of its farmland is polluted – Quartz

<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/ZHTWRYXy2gE?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/ZHTWRYXy2gE?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

[Cackalacky]

China just revealed a major state secret: nearly 20% of its farmland is polluted – Quartz

Heavy metals in soils, groundwater, and surface water means that land is basically useless for agriculture. Part of my work is assessing and determining the extent of a site contaminated with lead, arsenic, cadmium etc. Basically the only thing you can do to prevent human exposure is to restrict the use of the land to industrial uses or perform source removal of the soil and water. If they still use the land for agriculture or sources of drinking water, many people will become severely sick or dead.

 

[Guest]

LOL, no I'm not an economics professor or anything, but to think the Chinese are going to dump their US bonds to get pennies on the dollar for their investment isn't exactly oozing "economic history knowledge".

This is a faulty reasoning and I will show why.

The US is already bankrupt by historical standards. Read "This Time is Different" by two university professors, Rogoff and Reinhart. They take 800 years of economic history and database it, showing that the current debt levels the US is at indicate by historical standards that the US will never repay the debt and is also very likely to suffer a major economic meltdown.
Also note that precious US currencies have also failed, so this wouldn't be the first time in our own history, much less in world economic history.

Everyone knows the US debt/currency situation. China knows there will eventually be a default, so they are building reserves in other areas.

First, they are buying all of their own gold production, as well as production from other countries. Second, they are buying companies that produce food, rare earth metals, precious metals mines, etc..

The Chinese are better prepared to deal with a US paper collapse than the US is, and that is all they can do. The failure of US debt/currency would hurt them, and they are plenty pissed off about it as they should be. The US has extended themselves and cannot pay, and the creditor (China in this case) is justifiably upset.

The only quesiton is when does the US debt paper collapse, how will this lead to war (which it traditionally does between creditor and debtor nations). If China feels we are getting closer to the inevitable, they get more likely to pull the plug and initiate the crash themselves.

I don't they they are ready to do it yet, but are on their way to accepting the inevitable.

 

[Guest]

Sure: wars don't happen when countries lose more than they gain. What the fuck if the point of blasting the US away when the entire world economy goes with it? His can you be this ignorant of the fact that wars are fought for economic gain and no country is in a position to benefit economically from fighting in a World War.

Buster, read my post just above this. US economic collapse is, by historical standards and fact, inevitable. The question is when, not whether.

The Chinese will use the economic methods when it best suits them. In other words, we just gave them another option.

Also, your history on economic default and war is not very well informed. Economic collapses/depressions lead to war, not the other way around.

And the plan I outlined for China/Russia war would not lead to a collapse of their economies, but rather just the opposite. They use our weaknesses against us, and profit from it (minus their war costs, of course). It is an opportunity for them to do what the US has - establish a reserve currency, enlarge their empire, and extract wealth from other nations. This is Empire Building 101.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Buster, read my post just above this. US economic collapse is, by historical standards and fact, inevitable. The question is when, not whether.

The Chinese will use the economic methods when it best suits them. In other words, we just gave them another option.

Also, your history on economic default and war is not very well informed. Economic collapses/depressions lead to war, not the other way around.

And the plan I outlined for China/Russia war would not lead to a collapse of their economies, but rather just the opposite. They use our weaknesses against us, and profit from it (minus their war costs, of course). It is an opportunity for them to do what the US has - establish a reserve currency, enlarge their empire, and extract wealth from other nations. This is Empire Building 101.

It makes me sad that you believe this. Please just stop.

 

[Guest]

I assume you're familiar with MAD? That's how we got through the Cold War without anyone blowing up the world. If it were possible to preemptively destroy a nuclear power's ability to retaliate, such a policy would never have been possible. And I'm not aware of any new technology developed within the last ~25 years that would have changed that.



Silo-based ICBMs are simply 1/3 of our nuclear triad deterrent. We can launch nukes from subs and strategic bombers as well. There is no way China or Russia could hope to knock out our ability to retaliate.



See above. Our nukes are mobile as well. Thus, mutually assured destruction continues to be an effective policy. Fortunately for all of us, it's in no nation's interest to bring about a worldwide nuclear holocaust.



May I ask where you're getting your information? You don't seem to have a very accurate understanding of our capabilities vis-a-vis our "enemies".

A) Clinton Administration PDD-60 changes from 'launch on warning" to "absorb an attack".
PDD 60 article - US Strategic Nuclear Doctrine

"Launch on Warning

Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD "still allows" the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that "there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it." In fact, Bell said "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning--to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence."

Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said. "


B) Clinton Administration changes to Nuclear Deterrent policy.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/RL31623.pdf

This paper documents quite well how the US has decided Russia is not an immediate threat after the cold war, and is focusing on a myriad of smaller nation threats. In other words, the Whitehouse does not believe Russia is a credible nuclear threat anymore, which of course, is a joke.

"Analysts have criticized this policy, arguing
that it leads Russia to maintain its forces at a high state of alert, which could lead to
an inadvertent launch of Russia’s nuclear weapons if Russia received false or
ambiguous warnings of nuclear attack. Nevertheless, Clinton Administration
officials stated that the United States would not rely solely on the ability to launch
promptly; it could wait until detonations had occurred, then launch its retaliatory
strike at a later time.45 Consequently, some of the options available in U.S. war plans
included weapons that would be available if the United States launched its forces
before any were destroyed, and some included only those weapons that would survive
if the United States absorbed a first strike before initiating its response. The decision
on whether to launch U.S. weapons promptly or to wait for detonations on U.S. soil
would be left to the national command authority at the time of the crisis."

"However, by the end of that decade, as the Warsaw Pact
dissolved, the United States had canceled or scaled back all planned modernization
programs. In 1987, it also signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
Treaty, which eliminated all U.S. and Soviet ground-launched shorter and
intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles."

C) The US and Russia are about even on 'published' long range warheads (ICBM, SLBM) and tactial nukes. See here: World Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Report | Ploughshares Fund

However, the Russian numbers are considered by many analysts to be false. It is expected they have ignored disarmament treaties, particularly on long range missiles. See: http://bos.sagepub.com/content/69/3/71.full.pdf for a report on how Russia has actually been modernizing it's nuclear arsenal based upon accumulated research.



D) US mothballs Peacekeaper missile systems, relying on smaller Minutemen missiles.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26994

"The larger, multinuclear-warhead-carrying Peacekeeper ICBMs are being decommissioned as part of the Moscow Treaty brokered between the United States and Russia in May 2002. "

First deployed in 1986, the Peacekeeper is a four-stage rocket system designed to carry 10 nuclear warheads, according to a U.S. STRATCOM fact sheet. There are now about 50 Peacekeepers.

The Minuteman, a smaller, three-stage rocket system, has undergone numerous improvements since it was first deployed in the early 1960s, according to STRATCOM. The Minuteman III version, deployed in 1970, was designed to carry three nuclear warheads, according to an Air Force fact sheet, but a 1992 arms treaty reduced its payload to one warhead.

Russia has no such limits on their warheads as the US has imposed on itself. So it is not just the number of missiles, but of their range and number of warheads that matters.

 

[Guest]

It makes me sad that you believe this. Please just stop.

With all due respect, I don't care how you feel about what I believe. Thank you for trying to be empathetic, however.

At this point, I will stop responding to your posts because you haven't posted any salient analysis or offered any details/research of any kind. You cannot dispute any points being made with facts.

However, I have done just the opposite to support my argument.

I believe this applies to you in this thread.
#5. The OK Corral - YouTube

"The fightin' has commenced. Get to fighting, or get away."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said."

I'd say that's a good thing; reduces the risk of initiating nuclear holocaust based on a false positive.

Russia has no such limits on their warheads as the US has imposed on itself. So it is not just the number of missiles, but of their range and number of warheads that matters.

I don't believe for one moment that Russia has more advanced or a larger quantity of nuclear warheads. But granting that for the sake of argument, it really doesn't change the deterrence calculus at all. During the height of the Cold War, both the USSR and the US had enough nuclear fire power to destroy the entire world hundreds of times over. Even if you accept the most pessimistic projections regarding our current nuclear capabilities, we could still reduce every city in China and Russia to a heap of smoking rubble if we needed to.

I think your disagreements with most others in this thread boil down to two points:

• You think that China and/or Russia could successfully knock out our ability to retaliate with some sort of preemptive strike. As I mentioned above, given our nuclear triad deterrent (which is still the most advanced in the world) and the fact that we have bases all over the globe, that's simply not possible (nor would it be possible for us to preemptively knock out Russia's or China's ability to retaliate. So mutually-assured destruction is still alive and well. Self-preservation is the top priority for every regime, which means nobody is in a hurry to kick-start the apocalypse.
• You think that the economies of China and Russia are significantly distinct from ours. They're not; there's one global economy now that every nation participates in to varying degrees. But we're at the center of everything. If our economy collapses along the lines you described above, Russia and China do not emerge as winners; everyone loses. It's not nearly as simple as "China owns X amount of our debt"; America provides the bulk of demand for China's products, and has driven the industrial revolution that continues to lift its people out of poverty. If that demand suddenly disappeared, China's economy tanks, and it faces the prospect of mass rioting/ starvation/ revolution at home. That's not in anyone's interest.

 

[Guest]

I'd say that's a good thing; reduces the risk of initiating nuclear holocaust based on a false positive.



I don't believe for one moment that Russia has more advanced or a larger quantity of nuclear warheads. But granting that for the sake of argument, it really doesn't change the deterrence calculus at all. During the height of the Cold War, both the USSR and the US had enough nuclear fire power to destroy the entire world hundreds of times over. Even if you accept the most pessimistic projections regarding our current nuclear capabilities, we could still reduce every city in China and Russia to a heap of smoking rubble if we needed to.

I think your disagreements with most others in this thread boil down to two points:

• You think that China and/or Russia could successfully knock out our ability to retaliate with some sort of preemptive strike. As I mentioned above, given our nuclear triad deterrent (which is still the most advanced in the world) and the fact that we have bases all over the globe, that's simply not possible (nor would it be possible for us to preemptively knock out Russia's or China's ability to retaliate. So mutually-assured destruction is still alive and well. Self-preservation is the top priority for every regime, which means nobody is in a hurry to kick-start the apocalypse.
• You think that the economies of China and Russia are significantly distinct from ours. They're not; there's one global economy now that every nation participates in to varying degrees. But we're at the center of everything. If our economy collapses along the lines you described above, Russia and China do not emerge as winners; everyone loses. It's not nearly as simple as "China owns X amount of our debt"; America provides the bulk of demand for China's products, and has driven the industrial revolution that continues to lift its people out of poverty. If that demand suddenly disappeared, China's economy tanks, and it faces the prospect of mass rioting/ starvation/ revolution at home. That's not in anyone's interest.

I have already countered these arguments with hard facts, which you apparently refuse to accept, nor respond to with facts/links of your own. At this point, you have clearly lost the argument. Your opinions are of little value in the face of facts.

You are down to two key points, both of which are backward looking and completely discreditable with current facts. You are living in the past, and refuse to see the trends right in front of you.

By 2020, China and Russia will be much less dependent on the US, and ready to challenge the US for world power.

To wit:

The US government has formally disclaimed Russia as threat militarily (at least officially). I have posted links discussing such in lengthy detail. As a result, the US has mothballed their most potent nuclear warheads at the exact time Russia has modernized theirs. The US arsenal cannot compare with Russia's, even though we officially have the same number of missiles.

Also note that the US has not been able to conduct assessments of Russia's arsenal for some time, as Russia has denied US scientists access for many years, and is now disallowing US planes from formal surveillance. The US is concentrating on Iran, Syria, and the Middle East with their nuclear policy. Which is silly, since their nuclear arsenal is not 1/10 of 1% of Russia's.

In addition, the US has scratched 'launch on warning' and has been instructed to absorb the first way before firing back. This puts the US as a distinct strategic dis-advantage, especially considering Russia has more potent warheads in its arsenal than the US now does. To think this is an 'advantage' is pure idiocy.

Once the US absorbs the attack, their ability to retaliate is severely damaged. First, the US government will be in shambles after most US cities have either been destroyed or crippled. Manufacturing infrastructure will be largely decimated, and communications channels will be severely damaged.

Who then will command the massive army? Even if you live in fantasy land and think the remnants of the US government could retaliate with any efficacy, how are they going to fund any sort of war or defense over the long term? The US economy would be in shambles, while China and Russia still have theirs intact.

It is a matter of who strikes first and does the most damage. And, the US ability to retaliate will be severely crippled as I am about to document.

The ships will be out at sea, no doubt, but who is going to pay for their fuel? Who will coordinate the military when communications has been severed? Will the US be able to launch 'some' nukes? Sure, but only some. And by then, it will be largely too late.

In a preemptive strike, Russia and China will have severely damaged the US economy, military, communications infrastructure, manufacturing base, and cities. And yet, we expect to retaliate in full and win such a war? This is PURE IDIOCY.

Add in the components of cyber attacks on the nation's infrastructure, and it is unlikely the US will be able to run basic services such as food and utilities for the first few months after the strikes. For example, the US Dept of Energy has already stated that the electric infrastructure can be crippled with cyber attacks. This resulted from an NSA sponsored report that the US cyber infrastructure (utilities, manufacturing, services and goods such as agriculture and technology) is unprepared for cyber-attacks.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as documented in a Wall Street Journal article, has already stated that the nation's electric grid is susceptible to collapse if 9 specific substations are attacked.

Direct quote from FERC's report:
Destroy nine interconnection substations and a transformer manufacturer and the entire United States grid would be down for at least 18 months, probably longer.

Quote from the WSJ reporter:
"The U.S. could suffer a coast-to-coast blackout if saboteurs knocked out just nine of the country's 55,000 electric-transmission substations on a scorching summer day, according to a previously unreported federal analysis"

Now that this research is public, what do you want to bet Russia and China have these points on our grid circled on their maps? Those will obviously be hit first (first with cyber attacks, then strategic nukes).

If the grid goes down, how does the US communicate, by satellites, with it's military spread across the world? Satellites are the backbone of US military coordination. Without electricity, the US military CANNOT COMMUNICATE and CANNOT COORDINATE massive, global military operations with satellites. Are they going to resort to unencrypted shortwave portable radio transmissions using AA batteries, and hope it's not a cloudy day? How does this work?

How do they launch any domestic ICBM's? Assuming someone in the presidency survives, how exactly do they order a counterstrike? Do they send trucks out to the silos that weren’t completely destroyed (assuming there are any) with hand-printed launch codes? How long would this take?

As far as the economic issue goes, you seem to misunderstand the situation. The US has the world reserve currency upon which everything in the US is based. If that collapses, the US economy collapses. This does not, however, collapse the rest of the world at the same time. Why?

US hyperinflation would hurt imports. But China is already on her way to building a stronger internal economy.
This has been her policy for quite some time. By 2020, China will be much less dependent on US imports and will have largely dumped a significant portion of US debt from it's books. They will maintain enough to affect the bond markets to their advantage, but not enough that they cannot offset with existing savings in other assets which they have been massively accumulating for some time.

Some facts about China's recent economic changes:

-"China’s 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015) prioritized more equitable wealth distribution, increased domestic consumption, improved social infrastructure, and social safety nets. The plan is representative of China’s efforts to shift its emphasis toward domestic consumption."

-"You see, wages in China have been growing by around 12% a year in real terms over the last decade."

-“China was very key to results. The region now contributes roughly 13.3% of Apple’s total third-quarter revenue of $28.57 billion, compared to less than 4% in the year ago quarter. This has been a substantial opportunity for Apple, and I firmly believe we are just scratching the surface right now.”

The Australian Treasury has documented how China is turning into a consumption-based economy. China is where the US was decades ago, with a hungry population that wants an increased lifestyle and that is starting to have the funds to support it.

"Instead, future export growth will increasingly be led by shifts in China's exports towards more sophisticated goods and services as China adopts more advanced manufacturing technologies, and towards emerging economy destinations. This will underpin continued rises in China's productivity and living standards, allowing consumer spending to become a more important internal driver of growth, as the economy reduces its reliance on export and investment demand."


In addition, I have already documented in this thread how China has stockpiled reserves, built up their manufacturing base, and stored precious metals to back their new currency. You see, when the US dollar collapses, China will step forward as the new world reserve currency, as they have already publicly called for.

Once they have the reserve currency, they can print as much as they want to finance their economy (nations can typically do this for 40 years before a currency collapse). They wouldn't collapse like the US would, but instead would only suffer short term pain.

Let's take a look at some of China's non-dollar economic agreements that are positioning the Yuan as a future world reserve currency:

China and Brazil agree to $30 billion economic pact not using US dollars
China and Europe agree to $45 billion currency swap (non-US)
China and Japan agree to use own currencies in bilateral trade
China and Russia are close on an energy trading deal amongst themselves
China moves into a trade agreement with Australia
Shangai Exchange moving towards petro-Yuan
China sells oil using Yuan

Your opinion is no longer true, and therefore not relevant.

At this point I have kicked your ass pretty good. However, if someone else wants to come to the table with facts and analysis and not unsupported and undocumented personal opinions, I would be happy to come back and discuss them.

Cheers