GENIUS FORUMS

Unidian wrote:But even then, we must always remember, socialism doesn't work!

Paying 40 cents an hour and destroying the environment counts as "working"?

Ryan Rudolph wrote:What we’re observing now in places like China and India is the same sort of technological innovation that happened over the last few decades in places like Japan. For instance: India recently produced a $2600 car, and China is following their example.

Paying 40 cents an hour and destroying the environment counts as "working"?

Following another country's example isn't innovation. As the article stated, China copies others' products a lot.

Unidian wrote:Governments have a poor record in this regard, owing to the fact that they get infiltrated by powerful special interests who want a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.

DHodges wrote:

Unidian wrote:Governments have a poor record in this regard, owing to the fact that they get infiltrated by powerful special interests who want a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.

That is the nature of government. It is inevitable.

Unidian wrote:
Governments have a poor record in this regard, owing to the fact that they get infiltrated by powerful special interests who want a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.

Dhodges: That is the nature of government. It is inevitable.

Network [1976] wrote:What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions and compute price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, like we do.

We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations... inexorably determined by the... immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime.

Unidian wrote:So many questions... and maybe some of them will be answered after China calls in our debts and takes ownership of Earth.

The $1.4 Trillion Question, pg. 4 wrote:A Balance of Terror

Let’s take these fears about a rich, strong China to their logical extreme. The U.S. and Chinese governments are always disagreeing—about trade, foreign policy, the environment. Someday the disagreement could be severe. Taiwan, Tibet, North Korea, Iran—the possibilities are many, though Taiwan always heads the list. Perhaps a crackdown within China. Perhaps another accident, like the U.S. bombing of China’s embassy in Belgrade nine years ago, which everyone in China still believes was intentional and which no prudent American ever mentions here.

Whatever the provocation, China would consider its levers and weapons and find one stronger than all the rest—one no other country in the world can wield. Without China’s billion dollars a day, the United States could not keep its economy stable or spare the dollar from collapse.

Would the Chinese use that weapon? The reasonable answer is no, because they would wound themselves grievously, too. Their years of national savings are held in the same dollars that would be ruined; in a panic, they’d get only a small share out before the value fell. Besides, their factories depend on customers with dollars to spend.

But that “reassuring” answer is actually frightening. Lawrence Summers calls today’s arrangement “the balance of financial terror,” and says that it is flawed in the same way that the “mutually assured destruction” of the Cold War era was. That doctrine held that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union would dare use its nuclear weapons against the other, since it would be destroyed in return. With allowances for hyperbole, something similar applies to the dollar standoff. China can’t afford to stop feeding dollars to Americans, because China’s own dollar holdings would be devastated if it did. As long as that logic holds, the system works. As soon as it doesn’t, we have a big problem.

What might poke a giant hole in that logic? Not necessarily a titanic struggle over the future of Taiwan. A simple mistake, for one thing. Another speech by Cheng Siwei—perhaps in response to a provocation by Lou Dobbs. A rumor that the oil economies are moving out of dollars for good, setting their prices in euros. Leaked suggestions that the Chinese government is hoping to buy Intel, leading to angry denunciations on the Capitol floor, leading to news that the Chinese will sit out the next Treasury auction. As many world tragedies have been caused by miscalculation as by malice.

Or pent-up political tensions, on all sides. China’s lopsided growth—ahead in exports, behind in schooling, the environment, and everything else—makes the country socially less stable as it grows richer. Meanwhile, its expansion disrupts industries and provokes tensions in the rest of the world. The billions of dollars China pumps into the United States each week strangely seem to make it harder rather than easier for Americans to face their own structural problems. One day, something snaps. Suppose the CIC makes another bad bet—not another Blackstone but another WorldCom, with billions of dollars of Chinese people’s assets irretrievably wiped out. They will need someone to blame, and Americans, for their part, are already primed to blame China back.

So, the shock comes. Does it inevitably cause a cataclysm? No one can know until it’s too late. The important question to ask about the U.S.–China relationship, the economist Eswar Prasad, of Cornell, recently wrote in a paper about financial imbalances, is whether it has “enough flexibility to withstand and recover from large shocks, either internal or external.” He suggested that the contained tensions were so great that the answer could be no.