trotsky (Fatty) ID#377387:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
i fully agree with you that one shouldn't understimate China's industrial prowess, and i also acknowledge your very good point about the disparities within China - but such disparities tend to disppear faster than one thinks possible. an example would be Spain pre- and post accession to the EU.
note also, China remains in need of a LOT of development, even in the already 'developing/developed' zones - and it needs the industrialized nations to achieve it. this co-dependency ( we need China for cheap goods, China needs us for capital and know-how ) is a good thing, since it benefits all. inter alia, it is the main reason to doubt there will be war in the foreseeable future. that's why i'm afraid that a renewed economic downturn might scupper world trade ( inter alia via rising protectionism ) as that will without a doubt make war much more likely. war is, and always has been, a secular bear market phenomenon.
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 22:18
trotsky (Pyrite) ID#377387:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
as a matter of fact, US industries were in a situation very similar to China's now vis-a-vis Europe in the late 19th/early 20th century.
capital simply flows to wherever it expects profits can be maximised - that's an iron rule. true, it does remind one a bit of the 'pawnshop cycle' in some aspects, but the then there's the simple fact that various economies are at a different stage development-wise. it can't be wished away - so one must make the best of it. we all have an enormous interest in China's development - all our corporations are drooling at the thought of the coming several 100 million strong Chinese middle class - the things we will be able to sell to them!
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 22:05
trotsky (Kodie) ID#377387:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
my answer to this is, i don't think the authorities are 'unaware' of the various questions and theories that have arisen in the context of 9-11. i'm pretty sure SOMEONE has presented all of this to them already. it's just considered either too nutty to take seriously, or too dangerous ground to tread upon. like i said, why would a politician or a bureaucrat endanger his cushy job by insisting on investigating along uncomfortable avenues of inquiry? and rest assured, it is made KNOWN when someone gets too close to a truth that needs to stay under wraps to keep the status quo alive. see Wilson and the uranium story - they didn't even shrink from endangering the lives of Ms. Plame and all her 'assets' just to warn him off, or rather, set an example for the type of punishment that will be dished out when someone gets out of line.
consider also that the story as it stands is indeed a 'comfortable' one. the public is not only led to believe it, but actually WANTS to believe it. this is the essence of all politically motivated propaganda - not only tell the people what to believe, but tell them what they WANT to believe anyway. thorny details can easily be glossed over in the information flood.
why, the shadowy, bearded infidel monster in his cave in Afghanistan...if he didn't exist already, he would have to be invented! he could have sprung from a Hollywood movie, that's how perfect he is. : )
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 21:46
trotsky (Pyrite@trade) ID#377387:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
actually, yes - as counterintuitive as that seems. as for the wage differential, it makes no sense to simply compare wages one-on-one. how much higher is US labor productivity compared to China's? what's the purchasing power parity of the Yuan vs. the dollar? the answer to these two questions explains WHY regardless of all the whining, the US nowadays produces MORE GOODS THAN EVER BEFORE - in spite of the alleged 'export of manufacturing jobs to China'. note btw. that China has LOST 30 million manufacturing jobs over the past decade - obviously, they weren't 'stolen' by some other low wage country. instead they fell prey to productivity increases.
as for environmental standards, the best way to ensure that they improve in places where they are low, is to see to it that these places can develop their economies as fast as possible. the introduction of stricter environmental standards happens automatically once a certain standard of living has been achieved - this is simply an empirical fact that can be easily observed and is intuitively understood to be true.
note that while CERTAIN industries are indeed doomed in the West on account of Chinese competition ( e.g. textiles, furniture ) , those are all 'lower order' industries - the higher the degree of specialization of an industry, the more likely it will remain a province of the most developed economies. thus, we may lose a textile factory to the Chinese, who can better compete in this labor-intensive industry, but it will take some time before the Chinese can emulate our newest cutting edge high tech industries like biotech - and by the time they can do THAT, a new higher order industry will have sprung up here that they can't compete with. once China has reached the same degree of productivity and technological advancement we call our own, it will lose its textile and furniture industries to other developing economies ( maybe in Africa? ) as it will have lost its low cost labor advantage in favor of the higher productivity that characterizes a highly developed economy.
iow, by NOT interfering in free trade, neither via tariffs, nor via insisting on 'standards' we know a technologically inferior economy can't hope to meet, we actually advance the goal that we hope to achieve, namely that one day, 'trade among equals' will result.
as an analog, consider the development of agriculture in the Western world. 100 or so years ago, agriculture provided somewhere between 50-60% of all jobs, but produced far less than today. today, less than 2% of all jobs are in agriculture, and a lot more goodies are produced. do we complain about this egregious 'loss of jobs'? of course not, and it is quite obvious why.
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 21:23
trotsky (what does the IMF want?) ID#377387:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
that's easy: it wants to PERPETUATE itself, like every good bureaucracy. and since Bretton-Woods broke down, the ONLY raison d'etre for the IMF is 'management' of crises...and having failed to warn of the last big one ( Russia/S.E.Asia ) , it doesn't want to be seen failing to warn of the most likely NEXT one.
after all, what harm can there be in the warning? they're merely stating the obvious ( everybody knows the twin deficits are dangerous and unsustainable ) and if nothing happens, the warning will simply be forgotten. if something DOES however happen, they'll be able to say 'see we warned you. and you thought we weren't good for anything'. |
