|
China.
Mar 17, 2008 12:40:42 GMT -5
Post by ***Murdock[eXe] on Mar 17, 2008 12:40:42 GMT -5
Hi, i would like to have a discussion about China.
What do you think of China? The way the do with Tibet, the humenrights.. Should athletes boycott the Olimpic Games in China? I think we can't close our eyes. What do you think?!
Kind regards, Murdock
|
|
|
China.
Mar 17, 2008 17:28:37 GMT -5
Post by macpotty on Mar 17, 2008 17:28:37 GMT -5
How does war save a country from depression? Spoils of the battle?
|
|
|
China.
Mar 17, 2008 18:00:38 GMT -5
Post by {NB}crAzyAce! on Mar 17, 2008 18:00:38 GMT -5
How does war save a country from depression? Spoils of the battle? Something gets used and it has to be remade or repaired. It is an illusion of progress created by supply and demand. The production of new resources makes money. Ace
|
|
|
China.
Mar 17, 2008 19:08:16 GMT -5
Post by macpotty on Mar 17, 2008 19:08:16 GMT -5
But wouldn't the costs for repairing or replacing counter that?
|
|
|
China.
Mar 17, 2008 21:03:02 GMT -5
Post by {NB}crAzyAce! on Mar 17, 2008 21:03:02 GMT -5
But wouldn't the costs for repairing or replacing counter that? No. Someone has to make money doing it. Economy runs off of motion and as long as something is being done someone is making money. As long as there is a demand for something there will be someone there to try to supply the demand and make money off of it. Think of money as a wave. It's always there but it moves in cycles and changes from one place to another going where ever it is needed thus creating motion. This motion in itself is progress and that makes an economy flourish. In a nut shell the things that need repairing or replaced aren't always there like the money is so all that is being created is the need to keep the money moving. Ace
|
|
|
China.
Mar 18, 2008 15:11:54 GMT -5
Post by ***Murdock[eXe] on Mar 18, 2008 15:11:54 GMT -5
@bright, nice talk! Agreed with almost all things! I don't know much about it. But i know there is a Ecenomy 'crisis' in the US now. With the houses etc.. Is there a change that the Ecenomy gets down again? Like, for the WW2? ( If I ask a stupid qeustion nvm )
|
|
|
China.
Mar 28, 2008 6:41:55 GMT -5
Post by savagejay on Mar 28, 2008 6:41:55 GMT -5
Holy crap BrightIs, sounds like you have quite the ax to grind against the US. Too bad, it sounds to me like you are a victim of controlled news like everyone else. In the classical sense, a war with Iran at this point in US history would not help our economy, we cannot get anyone to perform any service based work now, that is why you hear all the liberals in our country demanding better treatment of illegal aliens... they won't have anyone to clean their toilets then! According to some recent studies, a war with Iran at this time would create a horrible economic vacuum for the US as, unlike during WWII, most of our "Industry" is outsourced to other countries, even some of our enemies like south America. We do not have the industrial infrastructure that was prevalent in our country like it was in the 40's and 50's. Also, OIL would be in a disasterous need 10 times what it is now. If you can imagine OIL simply doubling in demand for a new war, (WWII spin up increased oil demand by over 500%!!!) you would most likely see an increase from 100USD per barrel to over 400USD!!! No matter how many jobs you have, the US economy would not be able to handle this. Most of our industry today (over 65%) is comprised of small business which is already severely weakened. Most people in the world don't understand our love of auto's in the US has a massive necessity component. It is not like Europe where most can use Public transportation to get to their jobs etc... America is too large and Public transportation has never worked here except for in the large cities. Simply put, without cars, over 65% of Americans would not be able to work (65% of Americans drive an average of 45-60 minutes for work). For the last 6 years, due to the war in Iraq, the US has been bombarded with requests from Israel for us to attack Iran. The behind the door discussions usually end up with: "You do it, or we will!" You see, the US has taken a more central role with the problems in Israel, if we didn't- the smallest war in that portion of the ME would have dire consequences. A world Nuclear war is more possible than you know as both Iran and Israel have Nukes. Israel is not afraid to drop a low yield ground burst there, it has been the sole voice of the US that has prevented this so far. Should we attack Iran now? NO! Should we attack them in the future? Absolutely! Though we will most likely destroy ourselves doing it. I fell bad for the children that will inherit this world, though I won't be surprised to see 50 years from now the children hating us for not doing more. www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103
|
|
|
China.
Mar 28, 2008 8:11:05 GMT -5
Post by test on Mar 28, 2008 8:11:05 GMT -5
Holy crap BrightIs, sounds like you have quite the ax to grind against the US. NO! I happen to like the USA. Stop being paranoid that anyone outside the US has it in for you for gods sake Stating opinions on events is not the same as giving ones opinion on people or a country. @the victim of news etc. If you had read any of what i have said in discussions or what i say to people, you would discover i am the opposite of that and am very cinical of the media. They are controlled by governments in turn the international bankers. They didn't even report that osama bin ladin is dead ffs. ALWAYS QUESTION WHAT THE MEDIA SAY! Here... uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKIA war with iran would mean the eventual take over of iran allowing the oil to be traded back into dollars. OIL is essentially a limitless credit card for your economy. Thats how a present war with iran would save economy short term, only temporarily. And the only if all went to plan. uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uljOLFyCjjcThough no matter what short term tactics the fed does or the government. The fact remains nothing will save your economy in long term. Contrary to what you watch on your TV news stations and what you may have been taught at school, your money (the dollar) is borrowed at interest from a private bank. Your govervnment doesn't even print its own money(nor most countries, including ours ). The money you borrow from the federal reserve needs to be paid back plus the interest. The only way to do that is borrow more money from the fed.. at interest. This causes a cycle, which keeps putting you into cumulative debt. This is accelerated by modern mans obsession with material goods and credit cards. The long term way to save your economy and ours is to print our own money. Do away with interest and inflation. You need to get rid of the federal reserve or you will end up having to ditch the dollar and adopt a new currency like the amero. Makes you wonder if the dollars fall isn't planned .
|
|
|
China.
Mar 28, 2008 10:45:07 GMT -5
Post by ***Murdock[eXe] on Mar 28, 2008 10:45:07 GMT -5
Is he dead 0.o? The Fitna movie.. So many troubles about a film of 15 minutes From China to Muslims. I love Discussions!!
|
|
|
China.
Mar 28, 2008 11:25:54 GMT -5
Post by Ludders on Mar 28, 2008 11:25:54 GMT -5
British people in particular also have to be very careful when choosing how they should respond. After all, the olympics are being held in London in 2012. Boycotting China's Olympics would most likely cause them to recipricate in a simlar fashion. And China's athletes always win a large proportion of the overall medals (with such a large polution, there is a FAR greater chance that at least one of them will be naturally tallented at a sport). The olympics could be less interesting if a large proportion of the best athletes are removed. Especially in gymnastics, where there are only a few years when somone is supposedly at their best, missing an event can destroy their chances. I depsise talks about Islam. Noone has anything good to say about that . Enough of my friends are muslims for me to know that they get enough stick just living their lives, without the renewed pressures on their beliefs. People can pull quotes out of the Qur'an just as easily as I can pull quotes out of the bible. People also fail to take into account the period in history in which those two texts were supposedly written. Such behaviour would be viewed in a better light than they are nowadays.
|
|
|
China.
Mar 28, 2008 11:26:01 GMT -5
Post by savagejay on Mar 28, 2008 11:26:01 GMT -5
Federal Reserve.... ::sigh:: ok... here goes....
True, the FR IS a private bank, though our problems started waaaaay back with the Marshall plan (you know, the one that rebuilt europe post WWII?) and the Gold Standard.
I'm borrowing heavily here, so bear with me...
Let's go back to 1947. The US did two extremely strategic moves at that point. One was called The Marshall Plan and looked like charity, giving money away to all of war-torn Europe, officially to help repel communism.
Three years prior, it had established the Bretton Woods system, which put the US Dollar at the center of rebuilding the countries, and guaranteed an exchange in gold for the US Dollar. Every 35 US Dollars would be exchangable and refundable with one ounce in gold. Which was actually all pretty positive.
But what the US accomplished was much more important than that: it succeeded in making its own currency into a world currency. The dollar became the trade standard. Which is extremely important to pay attention to this fact.
Every nation has a currency reserve today. Savings in a piggy bank, if you like. This currency reserve was filled with the world's most stable and standard currency, the dollar.
Let's take that again: every nation has been buying dollars for the past 60 years just to stockpile it, because the US Dollar has been the standard currency.
And since they are buying the dollar, this means that the US is getting something else of value in return. In effect, the US has been able to print money at a rate that outpaces its industrial production, just because countries have been buying its currency.
At the end of 2007, this stockpile across the world was two and a half trillion dollars. More specifically, it was 2,445,180 million dollars.
continued in next post.
|
|
|
China.
Mar 28, 2008 11:27:07 GMT -5
Post by savagejay on Mar 28, 2008 11:27:07 GMT -5
What this means, is that unless the US has an equivalent on two and a half trillion dollars in cash on hand, which it absolutely doesn't, the US has consumed goods and services for two and a half trillion dollars that are not yet paid for. The countries bought dollars in exchange for yen-or-whatever, the US bought shiny toys for the yen-or-whatever, and never gave it a second thought.
This is like going on a shopping spree and paying with checks, and having the luxury of the checks never arriving at the bank to charge the account.
But the checks for that two and a half trillion dollars haven't vanished. They are sitting in vaults. And they are starting to trickle in to the bank. A barely noticeable dripping at first, it is now starting to turn into a small stream, and once people figure out what is happening, it's going to be a burst dam torrenting down the valley of global finance.
How much is two and a half trillion dollars? Actually, it isn't a lot of money in the global economy. It's about $7,500 for every man, woman and child in the US. It is about four years' worth of American military spending. It's about one-quarter of the American GDP.
The key here, however, is not how much money it is. It is that there is no financial coverage for it. Spending $1,000 on a TV set isn't a lot of money, but it can cause a lot of bad consequences for you and your standing if you don't happen to have those $1,000, and no more creditors are willing to lend you a hand.
And the US is running out of new creditors fast.
continued in next post....
|
|
|
China.
Mar 28, 2008 11:43:14 GMT -5
Post by savagejay on Mar 28, 2008 11:43:14 GMT -5
under the Bretton-Woods agreement, the dollar was essentially an IOU. A loan paper, an obligation to the US. Every 35 dollars was good for one ounce of gold, to be paid at any time of the creditor's choosing. However, the war tore through the American economy like a plough through a golf course. At the start of the war, the gold coverage was 55%, which is healthy by modern bank standards. During just 1970, however, that coverage dwindled from 55% to 22%.
Wait. 1970? Right. I'm not talking about Iraq. I'm talking about Vietnam.
At this point, economists no longer believed in the US' capacity of regulating its expenditure and making good on its promises. International pressure mounted to exchange dollars for the promised gold, particularly from France, which converted large amounts of its dollar currency reserves into gold at this time. It was a run on the bank to withdraw the savings while the bank was still alive.
On August 15, 1971, president Nixon declared bankruptcy. It wasn't worded like that, of course. But what Nixon did was to state that the US would no longer honor its creditors and pay gold for the dollar. He declared the credit documents invalid. This event has been dubbed The Nixon Shock. In any other milieu, cancelling payments is the same as declaring bankruptcy. Here, it was "just an executive order", and the world at large didn't really appreciate its consequences.
One such consequence was that the US was free to print as much money as anyone was willing to buy, inflating the bubble without any check, balance, or irritating warning light.
At the end of 1995, the foreign US Dollar stockpile was 610,337 million dollars. As I wrote earlier, today that number has grown to 2,445,180 million. That's close to two trillion in 13 years. A fourfolding of the debt. A 300% increase. Who is buying all of these dollars?
Asian countries, it turns out. A small handful of countries have been derogatorily called ODIC - Organization of Dollar Importing Countries.
The U.S. trade deficit was 763.6 billion dollars in 2006. This means that the United States bought goods and services for three-quarters of a trillion more than it was able to sell to other countries. Where did the US get three-quarters of a trillion dollars to fund this trade deficit in 2006? And an equal amount in 2007? And 2005?
You should start to get the answer by now. It didn't. Part of it came for printing money for foreign cash reserves, predominantly Asian ones. In any case, the US spent that money anyway.
To put this in context, in a list of global trade balances for 164 countries, the US is at the bottom of the list. The worst of all measured countries.
Not only that, but the silver medal goes to a country with a trade deficit of 125 billion dollars. That means that the US' trade deficit is six times larger than the second worst! We're not talking about a goal photo here to determine who's the worst offender, folks, we're talking about piles of money that are burning so big and fast you can see the smoke from weather satellites!
The US is running a federal budget deficit as well, with a current official debt running over nine trillion dollars and increasing fast.
|
|
|
China.
Mar 28, 2008 11:44:31 GMT -5
Post by savagejay on Mar 28, 2008 11:44:31 GMT -5
Towards the end of the 1970s, economists in the US administration panicked. The Japanese cars, which flooded the market, struck at the heart of the American pride.
Foreign cars were better than American cars from proud Detroit. This just could not happen. Toy-o-ta. Even the name didn't sound very American. And yet, people in America were rejecting the pinnacle of American engineering - cars - for a foreign-produced equivalent.
So the administration concluded quite simply that American's dominance in industrial production was over. Far from throwing in the towel, another question was asked: "How can the US have a continued economic dominance in a world where the US does not have an industrial production of tradeable value?"
The answer came from an unexpected source.
Some time in the early 1980s, the then-CEO of Pfizer, Edmund Pratt, was frustrated with competition from foreign companies that (quite legally) copied and improved Pfizer's products. At the point, however, there was no way to change foreign laws to create a trade environment where such competition would be outlawed.
To cut a long story short, Pratt ended up on the ACTN - the Advisory Committee on Trade Negotiations - and recommended a plan to the Department of Commerce that would guarantee American trade superiority.
In short, it involved a two-pronged approach. The first part of it was to enforce trade laws that favored American interests, and then establishing "free trade" within that framework, set up to favor US interests. The second part was to threaten trade sanctions against countries that did not agree to this lopsided "free trade" agreement.
At first this was believed a risky business, since trade sanctions had never been used as part of a systematic policy before, but only used in exceptional cases. However, the strategy - focused on intellectual "property", i.e. mostly-American monopolies - turned out to work extremely well.
A forum was sought to establish the new American trade terms as a world standard. Pratt and ACTN went to WIPO, the UN-controlled World Intellectual Property Organization, to seek their blessing. They were basically thrown out on their faces, when the UN realized what they were trying to accomplish.
So hijacking another vessel became necessary. That vessel was the GATT, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Using a combination of unilateral threats, bilateral agreements of "free" lopsided trade, and multilateral agreements once enough countries had agreed to the terms, an all-encompassing and lopsided trade agreement was devised. It would prohibit third world countries from manufacturing medicine to save lives in their own population. It would make sure that established players, primarily in the US, could outmaneouver upstarts not by building better products, but through the legal framework. The companies in the agreement, such as the record industry, are now lobbying for warrantless searches of people's mail and homes to find out when their monopolies are infringed.
Using a combination of deceit and tricky negotiations, the agreement was signed by many enough countries. That agreement is called TRIPs. The vessel enforcing it is GATT, which was renamed World Trade Organization, or WTO.
And that is how America came to enforce its monopolies over civil liberties of the people in the US and elsewhere. The key takeaways here is that America deliberately skewed international trade through a combination of threats and coercion, in an attempt to irrelevantize the fact that American industry didn't produce anything sellable.
With the US now having a record trade deficit, the strategy has ultimately failed.
|
|
|
China.
Mar 28, 2008 13:59:09 GMT -5
Post by joedirt on Mar 28, 2008 13:59:09 GMT -5
need i remind u that in 1980 US and lots of other countries boycotted the soviet boycott games because of war in afganistan, if usa boycott the games, the china will probably do some economic sanction b.s. and just focus more on europe and south america and then what, do u know the percentage of goods that are manufactured in china. its all money and tibet aint worth it
|
|