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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (261012)	4/8/2008 6:45:21 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

but it still has much less wealth than the US. You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it. China's "wealth" will double more or less overnight when it's currency doubles vs. the $. All confidently valued by what people happily pay (even sans mood altering substances, LOL!).

To: TimF who wrote (261012)	4/8/2008 7:03:39 PM
From: goldworldnet	Respond to of 281500

When the British lease expired on Hong Kong, China didn't want to kill the golden goose and consequently received a valuable lesson in capitalism. * * *

To: TimF who wrote (261012)	4/9/2008 8:40:41 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

China still has a majority farmer/rural population. On a GDP-per-capita basis, Chinese government is far more able to provide for its people than US government can do for Americans. As well, Chinese are more likely to put up with their government in case of a conflict than Americans with theirs (here I am assuming that aforementioned boycott is due to a conflict that matters to China enough. e.g. China decides to bring Taiwan into fold, whether Taiwan likes it or not. So the Chinese are far more likely to put up with the hardship of no trade with US than Americans are to do so just to support Taiwan). Finally, in your analysis you simply assumed that the next lowest cost supplier will simply fill in China's shoes right away. This is very unrealistic. It takes a lot of time to build factories with enough capacity to replace China's, to train workers who can operate those factories, and many countries would be unwilling to take the risk of such massive investments, only to find US and China have resolved their issues in a few months and see their investments in ruins.