Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (7947)	4/8/2006 1:52:15 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

When you say "China is making a ton of money", do you mean everyone in china? the government of china? Everyone. or a small group of chinese that are making a boatload of money while the vast majority of chinese live an agrarian subsistance lifestyle? The living standards of those falling within your moral judgement are rising a lot faster than the equivalent in the US. But to ignore the fact that most Chinese are still living in the communist ideal of a rice of bowl a day, makes no sense. Then you should start ignoring your own false conception of what's happening in China. Previously I pointed out the tendency among closet 'crats to start with some theoretical person and extrapolate that to a moral judgement of a population. Only a fool would swallow that bowl of rice. The minority of Chinese who are truly aggressive capitalist know how to play the greed of us westerners like no other. You have it wrong. They know that Westerners are guilt tripped and its that which they can they take advantage. They also know that westerners aren't actually guilt tripped for having money, that's all feigned, but the Chinese know Amercians are guilt ridden for not taking away someone else's money to give to the designated disadvantaged theoretical person. Now that they can take advantage of. They dangle those 1.25 billion potential customers in front of us No, the 'crats and liberals dangle that in front of the public in order to appeal to what they think drives economy: consumerism. It's like saying the US has an economic problem because it has no savings, or has a weak economy because there's not enough final demand. These are idiot claims just like conceiving China as a giant consumer market. If China has such a market, the US won't serve it because the US has priced itself out of world markets by unions wage demands. and we geek on foolish deals that will never be profitable, when in fact the real addressable market in china is still about the same as that of the U.S. Bottom line: the US is too hung up in nonsensical myths to be competitive and so won't be serving Chinese markets. On the other hand China will continuing serving US markets and continue making a ton of money. But China is fraught with the same issues as the U.S. There is no way that a government which subsidizes every aspect of the economy, can go on indefinitely without imploding. China isn't subsidizing anything. Why should its government subsidize its industry? Do you think you can put the inefficiency standards of the US on a competitive nation? Maybe you'd like to show how the PRC subsidizes. Cost of labor sets the yuan/dollar conversion rate. If you criticize the increasingly socialistic nature of our own country, it is facile to not evaluate other countries by the same standards. I can't understand this uncoordinated semantical dangler. The conditional is non sequitur with the conclusion, and the conclusion is undecipherable. "it is facile to not evaluate"? Let me attempt a rewrite of the sentence: If you criticize the increasingly socialistic nature of the US, it is disingenuous to fail to criticize other countries by the same standards. Assuming the same standards of judgement can exist between two countries given the two have the critical property in common of having humans, it is easy to conclude as I have that China is becoming increasingly anti-socialistic down the line of becoming more capitalistic. Socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. This is the great lesson world history will teach in the 21st century where in the 20th, in Samuelson's "mixed economy", they have been assumed to be mutual. Without the government subsidies, I seriously doubt that China would be seen as the threat that we see it today. The ROW says that about the US now. In general, the US has the world's highest trade barriers and thereby subsidizes its exports more than any other country. This is a common complaint during GATT meetings. I seriously doubt that the US would be seen as a threat in international trade without its protectionism. In any event only weaklings and 'crats see China as a threat. China and other Asians are the only thing that's keeping the West from degenerating into hopeless socialism.