Billionaires who are on the run

[Elixir]

Dude: he's trying to start a war with Taiwan that would kill millions. He regularly tries to intimidate them by constantly flying attack aircraft into Taiwan's sovereign air space (greatly surprising that Taiwan doesn't want such a bully ruling them!).

I'm no expert on military strategy; but if he were trying to start a war wouldn't he want to first lull them into a false sense of security, rather than intimidate them? Bullying makes it look like he wants them compliant and respectful and with none of that formal independence business, rather than conquered any time soon.

You make a good point. But I don't buy it. IMO, China is just a big bully. They rule with the fist. They intimidate Taiwan in order to say to other foes that you are next. I don't think that China cares if Taiwan is compliant and respectful. Taiwan dosn't flaunt it's freedom to China. If you have any examples, I'd be happy to reconsider. But I think that Taiwan is remarkedly compliant considering the threats that they are under each day.

Taiwan definitely doesn't want to give China an excuse to break out the flyswatter and brush them out of existence. A meek posture on their part ensures international outrage if China moves on them. Probably impotent outrage, but outrage nonetheless.

 

[TomC]

IMO, China is just a big bully. They rule with the fist. They intimidate Taiwan in order to say to other foes that you are next.

How is that different from any other global power?

Is the USA different, considering Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan?
Is Russia different, considering eastern Europe?

What makes Chinese policies noticably different from those of other nuclear powers?
Tom


P.s. ~Except, of course, for the haggis eating surrender monkeys in GB and France ~

 

[Harry Bosch]

IMO, China is just a big bully. They rule with the fist. They intimidate Taiwan in order to say to other foes that you are next.

How is that different from any other global power?

Is the USA different, considering Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan?
Is Russia different, considering eastern Europe?

What makes Chinese policies noticably different from those of other nuclear powers?
Tom


P.s. ~Except, of course, for the haggis eating surrender monkeys in GB and France ~

The huge difference here is that the US has no desire of conquering and occupying Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. China wants the Taiwanese to be ruled by China.

 

[funinspace]

As you tend to bounce around on so many differing details, I'm going to just stick to this idea that shouldn't be too hard to distill down to some basic points...

That was exactly the BS neo-liberal Bill/Hillary Clinton talking point for the past 30 years! The same so called free market BS directly benefiting the elite upper class at expense of the middle class since Reagan.

Could the US do better, of course.

We could have and should have excepting both parties are only the party of the one party of the top percent.

However, one party is hell bent on making the rich richer and the US more theocratic

I disagree, religion has very little to do with this.

and you seemed to think the 2 parties are about the same...

Yes

They have a billion people, the need for high speed rail is much stronger there. US health care is still far better, even if a total mess financially. UHC is the obvious US answer. But you seem to have favored a want a be dictator that would have only feed the rich, over the many Democrats who have been fighting for UHC. Try to find a Repug that supports UHC.

But yes, Xi and his recent predecessors have done well for their people's economic well being.

Chinese policy to support the middle class is light years ahead of what the 2 party system has brought in the US.

Are you suggesting that the average Chinese person is anywhere as well of as an average American? I have no idea of what you mean in response by going on about Clinton talking points otherwise. In the most basic comparison, the US life expectancy is 78.8 verses China's 76.9. So just how is China light years ahead of the US when, by most any metric they are behind? The references below reflect this.

Some facts:
https://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-china-economy.php

Due to the vast population of China, more than four times of US's population, the difference between these two countries is very high in terms of per capita income. The Per capita income of the United States is 5.78 and 3.61 times higher than that of China in nominal and PPP terms, respectively. The US is the 5th richest country in the world, whereas China comes at 63rd rank. On a PPP basis, The United States is in 8th position, and China is at 76th.

Housing:
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house

US home size has fallen a little since the recession, to 201 m2 (2,164 ft2) in 2009. UK house size is relatively small at 76 m2 (818 ft2) while Canadian houses are quite big at 181 m2 (1,948 ft2). For China the data only reflects urban properties, which now average 60 m2 (646 ft2) and have almost doubled in size in the last 15 years.

Another link, as I don't know the above source, and is comparible to the above information:
https://www.chinabankingnews.com/20...sidential-space-rose-40-8-square-metres-2016/

The latest data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics points to an ongoing rise in the country’s per capita residential building areas both in the cities and the countryside.

The latest data from NBS points to a per capita residential building area of 40.8 square metres for China as a whole, with an urban figure of 36.6 square metres and a rural figure of 45.8 square metres.

Automotive ownership per thousand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

#5 US 816
#73 China 207

Based on Gini, the US and China have similar income inequality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

 

[TomC]

The huge difference here is that the US has no desire of conquering and occupying Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. China wants the Taiwanese to be ruled by China.

I don't believe that's true. I believe the intention was to install puppet governments like we used to have in the gulf oil region. But that's quite a derail.
Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

The huge difference here is that the US has no desire of conquering and occupying Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. China wants the Taiwanese to be ruled by China.

I don't believe that's true. I believe the intention was to install puppet governments like we used to have in the gulf oil region. But that's quite a derail.
Tom

Well Tom, you started the derail! China/Taiwan and the US/mideast are vastly different. China believes that Taiwan belongs to it due to birthright. They consider Taiwan to belong to China. It's not a matter of economics. It's more a measure that China feels it is entitled to take over Taiwan.

 

[TomC]

The huge difference here is that the US has no desire of conquering and occupying Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. China wants the Taiwanese to be ruled by China.

I don't believe that's true. I believe the intention was to install puppet governments like we used to have in the gulf oil region. But that's quite a derail.
Tom

Well Tom, you started the derail! China/Taiwan and the US/mideast are vastly different. China believes that Taiwan belongs to it due to birthright. They consider Taiwan to belong to China. It's not a matter of economics. It's more a measure that China feels it is entitled to take over Taiwan.

I have a clue about the history.
It was your implication that the U.S. was rescuing people in Iraq and Iran from tyranny that caught my attention.
But it's still a derail.
Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well Tom, you started the derail! China/Taiwan and the US/mideast are vastly different. China believes that Taiwan belongs to it due to birthright. They consider Taiwan to belong to China. It's not a matter of economics. It's more a measure that China feels it is entitled to take over Taiwan.

I have a clue about the history.
It was your implication that the U.S. was rescuing people in Iraq and Iran from tyranny that caught my attention.
But it's still a derail.
Tom

Tom: I didn't say that. In fact, I don't agree with it in the least. I've been condemning our policy regarding Iraq and Iran for 20 years. You're confusing me with some other poster.

 

[TomC]

Well Tom, you started the derail! China/Taiwan and the US/mideast are vastly different. China believes that Taiwan belongs to it due to birthright. They consider Taiwan to belong to China. It's not a matter of economics. It's more a measure that China feels it is entitled to take over Taiwan.

I have a clue about the history.
It was your implication that the U.S. was rescuing people in Iraq and Iran from tyranny that caught my attention.
But it's still a derail.
Tom

Tom: I didn't say that. In fact, I don't agree with it in the least. I've been condemning our policy regarding Iraq and Iran for 20 years. You're confusing me with some other poster.

Sorry if I misunderstood the implications of your post. But I hear lots of people justify U.S. foreign policy while condemning other superpowers for very similar behavior.
/derail

Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

Tom: I didn't say that. In fact, I don't agree with it in the least. I've been condemning our policy regarding Iraq and Iran for 20 years. You're confusing me with some other poster.

Sorry if I misunderstood the implications of your post. But I hear lots of people justify U.S. foreign policy while condemning other superpowers for very similar behavior.
/derail

Tom

No problem. I don't disagree with you in the least. Foreign policy is very tricky. Nuanced. Do I agree with all US foreign policy decisions: Hell No!

However, I do think that we should start with the following: all sovereign countries today should have the right to govern themselves without threat of armed invasion. I think that if we could just start with this basic tenant, we could find a lot of agreement afterwards.

 

[RVonse]

Are you suggesting that the average Chinese person is anywhere as well of as an average American?

No not at all. I'm suggesting that that does not matter at all to whether a country has high GNP or manufacturing and trade surplus. Because if what you think is correct, how do you explain Germany?

You do not have be a poor country in order to show great GNP stats and/or improvement! Nor do you have to be a emergent country/economy just to be able to keep an existing manufacturing base! That is pure propaganda and fiction within your own head if you believe this. The US could have kept its manufacturing base and had Germany been the neo-liberal fools our government was, they would have lost their manufacturing base long ago the same way the US did. Please explain how Germany is not a emergent country/economy yet is also an export manufacturing powerhouse?

The correct answer is that the neo-liberal policies starting with the Clinton regime is where US industry began its manufacturing decline. Both political parties are to blame for this and it took both agency and direction from our government to make their neo-liberal policy happen. It was not just some law of thermodynamics that caused China to rise and the US to fall.

The rest of the stats you present are interesting but completely irrelevant to China's rise.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Are you suggesting that the average Chinese person is anywhere as well of as an average American?

No not at all. I'm suggesting that that does not matter at all to whether a country has high GNP or manufacturing and trade surplus. Because if what you think is correct, how do you explain Germany?

You do not have be a poor country in order to show great GNP stats and/or improvement! Nor do you have to be a emergent country/economy just to be able to keep an existing manufacturing base! That is pure propaganda and fiction within your own head if you believe this. The US could have kept its manufacturing base and had Germany been the neo-liberal fools our government was, they would have lost there manufacturing base long ago the same way the US did. Please explain how Germany is not a emergent country/economy yet is also an export manufacturing powerhouse?

The correct answer is that the neo-liberal policies starting with the Clinton regime is where US industry began losing its manufacturing decline. Both political parties are to blame for this and it took both agency and direction from our government to make neo-liberal policy happen. It was not just some law of thermodynamics that caused China to rise and the US to fall.

The rest of the stats you present are interesting but completely irrelevant to China's rise.

As an aside, the US remains a great manufacturer. We're only 4.25% of the worlds population. And yet, we manufacture 16.8% of the world's goods. Sure, China is the largest, we're only number 2. But they have 4 times our population.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/countries-manufacturing-trade-exports-economics/

 

[TomC]

Are you suggesting that the average Chinese person is anywhere as well of as an average American?

They're getting closer though.

Over the last few decades, the situation for the average Chinese has greatly improved. The situation for the average American has gotten rather worse.

There's no particular reason to think that trend is going to slow down or stop.
Tom

 

[funinspace]

Are you suggesting that the average Chinese person is anywhere as well of as an average American?

No not at all. I'm suggesting that that does not matter at all to whether a country has high GNP or manufacturing and trade surplus. Because if what you think is correct, how do you explain Germany?

You do not have be a poor country in order to show great GNP stats and/or improvement! Nor do you have to be a emergent country/economy just to be able to keep an existing manufacturing base! That is pure propaganda and fiction within your own head if you believe this. The US could have kept its manufacturing base and had Germany been the neo-liberal fools our government was, they would have lost their manufacturing base long ago the same way the US did. Please explain how Germany is not a emergent country/economy yet is also an export manufacturing powerhouse?

The correct answer is that the neo-liberal policies starting with the Clinton regime is where US industry began its manufacturing decline. Both political parties are to blame for this and it took both agency and direction from our government to make their neo-liberal policy happen. It was not just some law of thermodynamics that caused China to rise and the US to fall.

The rest of the stats you present are interesting but completely irrelevant to China's rise.

Ok, that is kind of a strange rambling...and being short on time...just a few comments.

First some facts: US manufacturing started declining as a percentage of the US economy in the 1960's and accelerated in the 1970's.
Second, WTF did Clinton do that wasn't being done in the prior 12 years?

On Germany, I'd say there are 3 big things that Germany does differently than the US:
(1) UHC
(2) low military budget compared to GDP
(3) Quality universal education

Now which of our 2 parties much more strongly supports these 3 things? It is not a trick question, nor are the differences even close. Without the right wing BS on all 3 topics, the Democrats would be able to push much harder to get these ideas thru. However, without strong congressional support (aka electing Democratic representatives, it ain't going to happen. Are there currently Democratic congressional critters that are against these ideas? Of course there are. However, 99% of Repugs are against all 3.

 

[RVonse]

Are you suggesting that the average Chinese person is anywhere as well of as an average American?

No not at all. I'm suggesting that that does not matter at all to whether a country has high GNP or manufacturing and trade surplus. Because if what you think is correct, how do you explain Germany?

You do not have be a poor country in order to show great GNP stats and/or improvement! Nor do you have to be a emergent country/economy just to be able to keep an existing manufacturing base! That is pure propaganda and fiction within your own head if you believe this. The US could have kept its manufacturing base and had Germany been the neo-liberal fools our government was, they would have lost their manufacturing base long ago the same way the US did. Please explain how Germany is not a emergent country/economy yet is also an export manufacturing powerhouse?

The correct answer is that the neo-liberal policies starting with the Clinton regime is where US industry began its manufacturing decline. Both political parties are to blame for this and it took both agency and direction from our government to make their neo-liberal policy happen. It was not just some law of thermodynamics that caused China to rise and the US to fall.

The rest of the stats you present are interesting but completely irrelevant to China's rise.

Ok, that is kind of a strange rambling...and being short on time...just a few comments.

First some facts: US manufacturing started declining as a percentage of the US economy in the 1960's and accelerated in the 1970's.
Second, WTF did Clinton do that wasn't being done in the prior 12 years?

Clinton brought China into the World Trade Organization. Their administration endorsed free global trade but without any reflection of the absolute labor arbitrage between them and us. Better known as neo-liberal policy. This was great for the tycoons but threw the blue collar workers under the bus. There are many who think Clinton was corrupted by the PRC but since that can not be proven I will just say he was an over educated idiot that did not know any better. One does have to wonder though, why neo-liberals would have been surprised when industry went straight into China from the US and why they would not have stopped what they were doing. But this is where I blame both democrats and republicans.

On Germany, I'd say there are 3 big things that Germany does differently than the US:
(1) UHC
(2) low military budget compared to GDP
(3) Quality universal education

Now which of our 2 parties much more strongly supports these 3 things? It is not a trick question, nor are the differences even close. Without the right wing BS on all 3 topics, the Democrats would be able to push much harder to get these ideas thru. However, without strong congressional support (aka electing Democratic representatives, it ain't going to happen. Are there currently Democratic congressional critters that are against these ideas? Of course there are. However, 99% of Repugs are against all 3.

I totally agree. In order to maintain strong manufacturing superiority it also takes strong socialist programs for the middle class. Because the only way the US can compete with lower labor in China is to make sure our labor can feed and house themselves at the lowest as possible cost. This is where I blame the red party.

 

[Bomb#20]

However, I do think that we should start with the following: all sovereign countries today should have the right to govern themselves without threat of armed invasion.

Countries don't have rights; humans have rights. When Viet Nam invaded Cambodia and drove the Khmer Rouge out of power, it made the world a better place. More importantly, it made Cambodia a better place.

I think that if we could just start with this basic tenant, we could find a lot of agreement afterwards.

Good luck with that. People don't start with basic tenets. People start with intuition and with experience with concrete situations; the purpose of a basic tenet is to provide those who hold its truth as self-evident with a rationalization for a decision already made for other reasons.

Foreign policy is very tricky. Nuanced.

True that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What scares me most of all is this. Compared to the leaders of the US, I've always thought of President Xi as the nice kind of guy who genuinely cares about the general welfare of China.

Nice guy??

Consider the following compared to US leadership; Xi has produced very desirable results for the Chinese middle class and majority of its huge population. The US has done quite the opposite. Examples:

1. Economic policies for industrial high wage low education jobs

China isn't exactly known for high wage jobs.

2. Plenty of low high density infrastructure intended to house low wage/ low education earners

Is that related to jumbo shrimp? If you're talking about their crazy building boom--the houses are far too expensive for low wage workers. An awful lot are sitting empty.

3. High speed rail for practical low cost transportation between metro locations

High speed rail tickets in China are similar in price to budget airlines--and by the time you consider the stops they aren't that high speed. I've been in trains going upwards of 200 mi/hr--but even with the short stops at the secondary stations that ends up being maybe 60 mi/hr. Useful for short-haul, not very competitive for long-haul. The D trains definitely are cheaper than air--but they're not high speed.

4. Lowest possible healthcare for the largest audience

I haven't had much experience with their system since my MIL died--but back then at least it was only the low-end stuff that was subsidized. You want the good stuff, pay out of pocket. From what little I've seen since it's still the same way.

5. A genuine desire to reduce wealth disparity for the haves and have not's (see the above video)

A claim. That doesn't make it so.

6. An emphasis on non woke and family friendly morals. Xi is cracking down on its entertainment industry too.

Xi is cracking down on anything that limits his power.

I've obviously never met Xi but from what you can actually see from his accomplishments policy wise, there seems to be no comparison between how he has treated the Chinese middle class versus how our top political leaders have done in the US. Xi is dictator no argument, but he seems to genuinely care about the Chinese middle class even much more so than even our most socialists presidents such as Obama. Contrast to the US where the US government does everything they can to make sure life saving pharmaceuticals are expensive as possible just so insiders can make huge profits. No argument Xi is a dictator....but he is a very benevolent dictator IMHO. China could do a LOT worse than Xi, which is exactly why this situation is so dangerous today IMHO.

Doesn't seem very benevolent to me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As an aside, the US remains a great manufacturer. We're only 4.25% of the worlds population. And yet, we manufacture 16.8% of the world's goods. Sure, China is the largest, we're only number 2. But they have 4 times our population.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/countries-manufacturing-trade-exports-economics/

And that only because you're counting physical goods but not services. We're still #1 if you count goods and services.

 

[RVonse]

Consider the following compared to US leadership; Xi has produced very desirable results for the Chinese middle class and majority of its huge population. The US has done quite the opposite. Examples:

1. Economic policies for industrial high wage low education jobs

China isn't exactly known for high wage jobs.

2. Plenty of low high density infrastructure intended to house low wage/ low education earners

Is that related to jumbo shrimp? If you're talking about their crazy building boom--the houses are far too expensive for low wage workers. An awful lot are sitting empty.

3. High speed rail for practical low cost transportation between metro locations

High speed rail tickets in China are similar in price to budget airlines--and by the time you consider the stops they aren't that high speed. I've been in trains going upwards of 200 mi/hr--but even with the short stops at the secondary stations that ends up being maybe 60 mi/hr. Useful for short-haul, not very competitive for long-haul. The D trains definitely are cheaper than air--but they're not high speed.

4. Lowest possible healthcare for the largest audience

I haven't had much experience with their system since my MIL died--but back then at least it was only the low-end stuff that was subsidized. You want the good stuff, pay out of pocket. From what little I've seen since it's still the same way.

5. A genuine desire to reduce wealth disparity for the haves and have not's (see the above video)

A claim. That doesn't make it so.

6. An emphasis on non woke and family friendly morals. Xi is cracking down on its entertainment industry too.

Xi is cracking down on anything that limits his power.

I've obviously never met Xi but from what you can actually see from his accomplishments policy wise, there seems to be no comparison between how he has treated the Chinese middle class versus how our top political leaders have done in the US. Xi is dictator no argument, but he seems to genuinely care about the Chinese middle class even much more so than even our most socialists presidents such as Obama. Contrast to the US where the US government does everything they can to make sure life saving pharmaceuticals are expensive as possible just so insiders can make huge profits. No argument Xi is a dictator....but he is a very benevolent dictator IMHO. China could do a LOT worse than Xi, which is exactly why this situation is so dangerous today IMHO.

Doesn't seem very benevolent to me.

AFAIK, there are not any tent cities and homeless in Beijing like there are in Los Angeles. Nor are there any Chinese dying because they can not afford a medication. Unlike the fed, the Chinese bank is national so their home prices are really caused by economic forces rather than low artificial interest rates to serve insiders.

From the outside, most sources make the claim typical mainland Chinese are happy and satisfied with leadership. But with a legacy dictatorship in place who really knows what they think?

Loren, as someone with more experience than most (having been there often) what do you believe would happen if Xi actually had to face a free election? Would he win by a landslide, would he just barely win (like Biden/Trump), or would he lose by a landslide?

I'm willing to say he would win by a landslide but I am very interested in your opinion.

 

[RVonse]

As an aside, the US remains a great manufacturer. We're only 4.25% of the worlds population. And yet, we manufacture 16.8% of the world's goods. Sure, China is the largest, we're only number 2. But they have 4 times our population.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/countries-manufacturing-trade-exports-economics/

And that only because you're counting physical goods but not services. We're still #1 if you count goods and services.

We count goods in our GNP that are really manufactured in China but sold in the US. Examples: Apple telephones and Nike shoes. If Apple makes a phone in China and sells it to you, is that really generating economic activity for the US? We also count GNP that is generated by our government (doctored stats now), we did not account like this 50 years ago.

Both governments and all the media lie so it is hard to tell. But if China is not already ahead of us they certainly are in the very near future.