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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (29560)	2/16/2008 7:05:56 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217544

it would seem that ... given that usa had not won a single war when engaging china even when china is weak to the point of disintegration, the money will prove a wasted effort, now that china is not disintegrating just historical probabilities at work the usa defense budget (appr 500 bil) is in its entirety financed by paying the requisite and soon enough to be raised interest rate to china, and given that china's entire defense budget is covered by interest income (about 50 bil) from usa, and given that china's asymmetrical approach to defense, combining astute hardware with smart relationship constructs derives a dollar's of worth (500 bil) for 10 cents of value (50 bil), the equation of sustainability can work until the empire is cut off from economic life blood by its strategic competitors, amongst which is china just mathematics at work as to china and russia, all true, except a matter of explicit strategy, that china's #1 relationship is that vis a vis usa for the very limited objective of taiwan, via positioning china is deliberately staying clear of russia and its borders and its strategic objectives (recovery to global power via reintegration of near-russia and cowing of old europe together with reminding new europe) regardless of the amount of moolah usa chooses to spend against china, total war is not winnable by usa, and so moot point, and for limited objectives usa has no leverage when those limited objectives are firm, not negotiable, and not in usa vital interest just positioning at work this is how typically empires frazzle first at the edges this is also why the bare foot needs never be afraid of the guy in dress loafers, because of probabilities, mathematics and positioning beijing dictates the framework of relationship with usa, is its supplier of goods and its credit, has direct pipeline to usa monetary largess of treasury checks that is meant to pay for empire's bread and circuses, and gets to invest in iraqi oil fields and afghanistan iron mountains stepping in the foot prints of the usa marines, and also supply same marines with copius amounts of tires and consumables needed for patrol duties, and turn around to use the income to buy slices of financial institutions so as to keep tabs on pulse of other investment opportunities one easy way for china to step up defense spending is for usa to borrow more from china as the empire's needs grows in proportion of the job not getting done a spiralling relationship that is win (income) win (balance sheet) win (natural resource) and win (positioning) again this is also why the G7 pleads with threat for china to revalue faster even though it would make all stuff more expensive because the treasury checks of the empire will help one economy only, to help that economy in settling on self-sustaining positioning in accelerated time, and that one is ruled from beijing