The US and China: One Side is Losing, the Other is Winning

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,695
2,992
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Introduction:



Asian capitalism, notably China and South Korea are competing with the US for global power. Asian global power is driven by dynamic economic growth, while the US pursues a strategy of military-driven empire building.



One Day’s Read of the Financial Times



Even a cursory read of a single issue of the Financial Times (December 28, 2009) illustrates the divergent strategies toward empire building. On page one, the lead article on the US is on its expanding military conflicts and its ‘war on terror’, entitled “Obama Demands Review of Terror List”. In contrast, there are two page-one articles on China, which describe China’s launching of the world’s fastest long-distance passenger train service and China’s decision to maintain its currency pegged to the US dollar as a mechanism to promote its robust export sector. While Obama turns the US focus on a fourth battle front (Yemen) in the ‘war on terror’ (after Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan), the Financial Times reports on the same page that a South Korean consortium has won a $20.4 billion dollar contract to develop civilian nuclear power plants for the United Arab Emirates, beating its US and European competitors.



On page two of the FT there is a longer article elaborating on the new Chinese rail system, highlighting its superiority over the US rail service: The Chinese ultra-modern train takes passengers between two major cities, 1,100 kilometers, in less than 3 hours whereas the US Amtrack ‘Express’ takes 3 ½ hours to cover 300 kilometers between Boston and New York. While the US passenger rail system deteriorates from lack of investment and maintenance, China has spent $17 billion dollars constructing its express line. China plans to construct 18,000 kilometers of new track for its ultra-modern system by 2012, while the US will spend an equivalent amount in financing its ‘military surge’ in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as opening a new war front in Yemen.



China builds a transport system linking producers and labor markets from the interior provinces with the manufacturing centers and ports on the coast, while on page 4 the Financial Times describes how the US is welded to its policy of confronting the ‘Islamist threat’ with an endless ‘war on terror’. The decades-long wars and occupations of Moslem countries have diverted hundreds of billions of dollars of public funds to a militarist policy with no benefit to the US, while China modernizes its civilian economy. While the White House and Congress subsidize and pander to the militarist-colonial state of Israel with its insignificant resource base and market, alienating 1.5 billion Moslems (Financial Times – page 7), China’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew 10 fold over the past 26 years (FT – page 9). While the US allocated over $1.4 trillion dollars to Wall Street and the military, increasing the fiscal and current account deficits, doubling unemployment and perpetuating the recession (FT – page 12), the Chinese government releases a stimulus package directed at its domestic manufacturing and construction sectors, leading to an 8% growth in GDP, a significant reduction of unemployment and ‘re-igniting linked economies’ in Asia, Latin America and Africa (also on page 12).



While the US was spending time, resources and personnel in running ‘elections’ for its corrupt clients in Afghanistan and Iraq, and participating in pointless mediations between its intransigent Israeli partner and its impotent Palestinian client, the South Korean government backed a consortium headed by the Korea Electric Power Corporation in its successful bid on the $20.4 billion dollar nuclear power deal, opening the way for other billion-dollar contracts in the region (FT – page 13).



While the US was spending over $60 billion dollars on internal policing and multiplying the number and size of its ‘homeland’ security agencies in pursuit of potential ‘terrorists’, China was investing $25 billion dollars in ‘cementing its energy trading relations’ with Russia (FT – page 3).



The story told by the articles and headlines in a single day’s issue of the Financial Times reflects a deeper reality, one that illustrates the great divide in the world today. The Asian countries, led by China, are reaching world power status on the basis of their massive domestic and foreign investments in manufacturing, transportation, technology and mining and mineral processing. In contrast, the US is a declining world power with a deteriorating society resulting from its military-driven empire building and its financial-speculative centered economy:



part 2 coming
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,695
2,992
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
1. Washington pursues minor military clients in Asia; while China expands its trading and investment agreements with major economic partners – Russia, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere.

2. Washington drains the domestic economy to finance overseas wars. China extracts minerals and energy resources to create its domestic job market in manufacturing.

3. The US invests in military technology to target local insurgents challenging US client regimes; China invests in civilian technology to create competitive exports.

4. China begins to restructure its economy toward developing the country’s interior and allocates greater social spending to redress its gross imbalances and inequalities while the US rescues and reinforces the parasitical financial sector, which plundered industries (strips assets via mergers and acquisitions) and speculates on financial objectives with no impact on employment, productivity or competitiveness.

5. The US multiplies wars and troop build-ups in the Middle East, South Asia, the Horn of Africa and Caribbean; China provides investments and loans of over $25 billion dollars in building infrastructure, mineral extraction, energy production and assembly plants in Africa.

6. China signs multi-billion dollar trade and investment agreements with Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru and Bolivia, securing access to strategic energy, mineral and agricultural resources; Washington provides $6 billion in military aid to Colombia, secures seven military bases from President Uribe (to threaten Venezuela), backs a military coup in tiny Honduras and denounces Brazil and Bolivia for diversifying its economic ties with Iran.

7. China increases economic relations with dynamic Latin American economies, incorporating over 80% of the continent’s population; the US partners with the failed state of Mexico, which has the worst economic performance in the hemisphere and where powerful drug cartels control wide regions and penetrate deep into the state apparatus.



Conclusion



China is not an exceptional capitalist country. Under Chinese capitalism, labor is exploited; inequalities in wealth and access to services are rampant; peasant-farmers are displaced by mega-dam projects and Chinese companies recklessly extract minerals and other natural resources in the Third World. However, China has created scores of millions of manufacturing jobs, reduced poverty faster and for more people in the shortest time span in history. Its banks mostly finance production. China doesn’t bomb, invade or ravage other countries. In contrast, US capitalism has been harnessed to a monstrous global military machine that drains the domestic economy and lowers the domestic standard of living in order to fund its never-ending foreign wars. Finance, real estate and commercial capital undermine the manufacturing sector, drawing profits from speculation and cheap imports.


China invests in petroleum-rich countries; the US attacks them. China sells plates and bowls for Afghan wedding feasts; US drone aircraft bomb the celebrations. China invests in extractive industries, but, unlike European colonialists, it builds railroads, ports, airfields and provides easy credit. China does not finance and arm ethnic wars and ‘color rebellions’ like the US CIA. China self-finances its own growth, trade and transportation system; the US sinks under a multi trillion dollar debt to finance its endless wars, bail out its Wall Street banks and prop up other non-productive sectors while many millions remain without jobs.

China will grow and exercise power through the market; the US will engage in endless wars on its road to bankruptcy and internal decay. China’s diversified growth is linked to dynamic economic partners; US militarism has tied itself to narco-states, warlord regimes, the overseers of banana republics and the last and worst bona fide racist colonial regime, Israel.

China entices the world’s consumers. US global wars provoke terrorists here and abroad.

China may encounter crises and even workers rebellions, but it has the economic resources to accommodate them. The US is in crisis and may face domestic rebellion, but it has depleted its credit and its factories are all abroad and its overseas bases and military installations are liabilities, not assets. There are fewer factories in the US to re-employ its desperate workers: A social upheaval could see the American workers occupying the empty shells of its former factories.

To become a ‘normal state’ we have to start all over: Close all investment banks and military bases abroad and return to America. We have to begin the long march toward rebuilding industry to serve our domestic needs, to living within our own natural environment and forsake empire building in favor of constructing a democratic socialist republic.

When will we pick up the Financial Times or any other daily and read about our own high-speed rail line carrying American passengers from New York to Boston in less than one hour? When will our own factories supply our hardware stores? When will we build wind, solar and ocean-based energy generators? When will we abandon our military bases and let the world’s warlords, drug traffickers and terrorists face the justice of their own people?

Will we ever read about these in the Financial Times?

In China, it all started with a revolution...


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16754
 

hinz

New member
Nov 27, 2006
5,672
1
0
I trust those sources with a grain of salt, like reading the research papers from RAND or Debka or Stratfor or AEP :rolleyes:
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Here's a couple of simple facts:

The United States spends about 4% of its GDP on its military for a total of around 600 billion.

China spends under 2% of its GDP on its military for a total of around 85 billion.

Chinese GDP grows by around 9% per year, US GDP grows by around 1% per year, both in real (post inflation) terms.

Some conclusions that could be drawn from this are:

1) US military spending is a bigger drag on the US economy than Chinese military spending is on that economy

2) Unless something changes China will catch up with the US in military spending in about 25 years

3) If China were to increase its share of GDP spent on the military to US levels it would catch the USA in around 15 years.

4) After that point it will be all but impossible for the US to keep up with Chinese military spending
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,714
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

hinz

New member
Nov 27, 2006
5,672
1
0
Chinese GDP grows by around 9% per year, US GDP grows by around 1% per year, both in real (post inflation) terms.
Not an economist but as OTM mentioned before, those % are suspect.

Given the fact developed country like the US and Greece doctored their GDP numbers. Am I safe to assume developing countries like China is equally guilty to fudge the GDP numbers?

Keep in mind Chinese GDP looks impressive but exactly what % of GDP growth is structural, a min to keep unemployment manageable or under control.

Plus what kind of quality of economic growth are we talking about here?
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Not an economist but as OTM mentioned before, those % are suspect.
The published Chinese numbers are plainly suspect, given the CCP's penchant for keeping secrets, but when Western economists estimate Chinese GDP by measuring import and export volumes, which are reliabliy accounted in foreign ledgers, they come up with similar numbers. It's hard to fake export and import volumes.

Plus what kind of quality of economic growth are we talking about here?
Generally quite high. We are talking about turning subsistence farmers into gainfully employed factory workers. That is fairly good quality economic growth.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Don't be silly, growth rate for the last 10 years:
Sorry, I was talking about the future. The US has a huge debt hole to climb out of and can expect growth over the next 10 to 15 years similar to what Japan endured under the same circumstances.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,714
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Sorry, I was talking about the future. The US has a huge debt hole to climb out of and can expect growth over the next 10 to 15 years similar to what Japan endured under the same circumstances.
I'd take that bet.

The CBO thinks the GDP will grow 4% from 2011-2014 and 2.5% from 2015-2019 - http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf (Table 1)

The Economist thinks GDP will grow at 4% in 2010 - http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15457236

Two data points, take them for what they are worth, I feel pretty comfortable that you're grossly underestimating GDP growth in the US.

OTB
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Note that if/when the US government loses its AAA credit rating that will automatically downgrade the debt of most US firms as well, such as the banks that rely on a potential future bailout. Given the ridiculous level of gearing in the US economy a credit rating slash would be pretty painful. The rosy predictions that assume the US can return to "business as usual" without repairing the private and public debt issues--well it's not going to happen.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704259304575043600254910186.html
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,714
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Note that if/when the US government loses its AAA credit rating that will automatically downgrade the debt of most US firms as well, such as the banks that rely on a potential future bailout. Given the ridiculous level of gearing in the US economy a credit rating slash would be pretty painful. The rosy predictions that assume the US can return to "business as usual" without repairing the private and public debt issues--well it's not going to happen.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704259304575043600254910186.html
Just so I'm clear, are you sticking with your 1% projection or changing the subject?

OTB
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Just so I'm clear, are you sticking with your 1% projection or changing the subject?

OTB
I'm saying that US GDP growth is going to be essentially flat for the next 10 years. At the moment it is entirely dependent on a massive government stimulus which must come to an end if the US is going to retain its AAA rating. You can pump the GDP up for a year or two by borrowing cash, but that is not sustainable. The only sustainable way forward is to reduce gearing in the economy and that will slow growth while it happens.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,714
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
I'm saying that US GDP growth is going to be essentially flat for the next 10 years. At the moment it is entirely dependent on a massive government stimulus which must come to an end if the US is going to retain its AAA rating. You can pump the GDP up for a year or two by borrowing cash, but that is not sustainable. The only sustainable way forward is to reduce gearing in the economy and that will slow growth while it happens.
OK, I'll call bumpkis on this.....

I'll predict 2.0% per year or above - on average for any 5 years.... and I think that's conservative.

OTB
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
OK, I'll call bumpkis on this.....

I'll predict 2.0% per year or above - on average for any 5 years.... and I think that's conservative.

OTB
Ok, if you're happy with private sector debt having grown to 350% of GDP and you're content that interest rates will remain low enough that this servicable. That can be swept under the carpet for awhile, but only really if the US Govt. continues to function as the nation's primary mortgage lender. Eventually the problem will either show up in the public books as the government takes over more and more of the private debt, or else it will show up in asset bubbles fueled by artificially low interest rates. Sooner or later the chickens come home to roost, this problem MUST eventually be dealt with.

Let's do some simple math. Right now interest rates are damn near zero, so the interest on 350% of GDP is not all that large. What happens when interest rates rise to something still historically low, like, say, four percent? What is four percent of 350% of GDP?
 

chiller_boy

New member
Apr 1, 2005
919
0
0
Sorry, I was talking about the future. The US has a huge debt hole to climb out of and can expect growth over the next 10 to 15 years similar to what Japan endured under the same circumstances.
And dont forget the huge entitlement cost in the US. I wonder what the social security, medicare and medicaid costa are in China? Unless something is done about health care we will be over 20 % GDP on health care.
 

FOOTSNIFFER

New member
Jan 23, 2004
1,506
0
0
Ok, if you're happy with private sector debt having grown to 350% of GDP and you're content that interest rates will remain low enough that this servicable. That can be swept under the carpet for awhile, but only really if the US Govt. continues to function as the nation's primary mortgage lender. Eventually the problem will either show up in the public books as the government takes over more and more of the private debt, or else it will show up in asset bubbles fueled by artificially low interest rates. Sooner or later the chickens come home to roost, this problem MUST eventually be dealt with.

Let's do some simple math. Right now interest rates are damn near zero, so the interest on 350% of GDP is not all that large. What happens when interest rates rise to something still historically low, like, say, four percent? What is four percent of 350% of GDP?
Don't even bother trying, Fuji.

The Americans are beyond help when it comes to facing up to their debt insanity; they've been the top dog for half a century and so can't imagine a time when they lose their pre-eminence. During flush economic times, a Republican president allowed a republican Congress to run unconscionable deficits, even introducing a ruinous, unfunded prescription drug entitlement. They prosecute two wars on credit while their communications and roads infrastructure falls behind almost everyone else, and millions of people can't find adequate health coverage. Recently, the Republican leadership voted down a proposal from the President that they establish a panel to propose ways of reducing future spending. What was hilarious is that the Obama was just agreeing to a proposal originally put forward by that same republican leadership. They even reject their own ideas out of political calculation, not just those of the Pres. Those clowns are toast.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,714
98
48
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Ok, if you're happy with private sector debt having grown to 350% of GDP and you're content that interest rates will remain low enough that this servicable. That can be swept under the carpet for awhile, but only really if the US Govt. continues to function as the nation's primary mortgage lender. Eventually the problem will either show up in the public books as the government takes over more and more of the private debt, or else it will show up in asset bubbles fueled by artificially low interest rates. Sooner or later the chickens come home to roost, this problem MUST eventually be dealt with.

Let's do some simple math. Right now interest rates are damn near zero, so the interest on 350% of GDP is not all that large. What happens when interest rates rise to something still historically low, like, say, four percent? What is four percent of 350% of GDP?
I think the facts are going to bitch-slap you.... I"ll have to bookmark this thread.

OTB
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,957
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
I think the facts are going to bitch-slap you.... I"ll have to bookmark this thread.

OTB
The only way the US will maintain the illusion of growth is to rack up more and more debt. Might be able to pull that off a few more years, but in the long run it's going to limit US growth severely.

Keep your eye on the percentage of US GDP that has to be paid to foreigners every year in interest on the debt, that's the key number.

Internal lending, where money is owed to another American, can be washed away by bankruptcy courts with no long-term economic consequences, just a redistribution of wealth from creditor to debtor.

Note that in the past American public debt was mostly owed to other Americans, but now it is mostly owed to foreigners. That means the current debt load on the American government is significantly harsher than in when it was at high levels in the past. In the past repayment of the debt stimulated the economy as it transferred cash to Americans. Now repayment stimulates the Chinese economy.

The same is true of private debt, when the debt is ultimately owed to a foreigner.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts