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: TobagoJack who wrote (57788)	11/12/2009 7:16:32 AM
From: KyrosL	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217588

I agree with most of it. In fact I want the US to accelerate its withdrawal as the world's policeman, and adopt a quasi-mercantilistic policy along the lines of Japan and China: we trade only when it's in the best long term interest of the US. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US imperial reach only props up the egos of some politicians and military chiefs and is greatly hurting US competitiveness.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (57788)	11/12/2009 7:17:48 AM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	1 Recommendation Respond to of 217588

his fixed givens and their contexts.....the majority of which come from a purely western view of the world. as usual, he doesn't even try to put himself, in the shoes of the "other". hopeless.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (57788)	11/12/2009 9:32:46 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217588

here is the flaw: "Josef Joffe, co-editor of Germany’s Die Zeit. China, he says, is a place where the rest of the world essentially rents workers and workspace at deflated prices and distorted exchange rates. Its export dependence, as well as being an economic Achilles’ heel, has political consequences. These include 70,000 civil disturbances each year that are not factored into the linear growth forecasts beloved of investment bankers." Chinese exported their way out of poverty. Once with money they will continue executing their plan. They use Africa as springboard.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (57788)	11/13/2009 4:36:15 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217588

The main flaw is that the article assumes that nations act out billiard ball physics, with demographics and current trends plotting the future trajectory.... Imagine an article like this was written 25 years ago, in 1984. The predictions might be that the Soviet Union was showing some stress from the Afghan action, but not critical. Oil at around $30 per barrell provided considerable foreign exchange. (By 86 oil would drop under $20, and average around $22 for the next ten years.) Japan was still doing very well in 1984. The predictions for China would reflect only a little of the changes that came from Deng and others. South Korea was one of the fast growing economies. Eastern Europeans did not have stock exchanges, as they were socialist / communist. Brazil was a land of inflation, India had only a few call centers. ************* ***** If this was written 12 years ago, there would be big questions about Russia's long term survival, and Asia's future, with South Korea looking very bad because of the Asian economic crisis. A US Dollar that was TOO STRONG would be blamed for Asia's troubles. ########### ###### There is considerable economic cooperation between the US and China - not quite a "de-facto economic alliance" but viewed from Brussels (EU) or Moscow (Russia) there would seem to be a lot of coincidences... So maybe the US and China cooperate to create a positive sum game among themselves and Japan / South Korea / Taiwan etc. and maybe Canada / Australia ... So when 2050 rolls around, investors in China (with fewer workers) will receive income / sell off their investments in the US, which will have a younger work force post baby boomers. If we look at the work force trends as being complimentary instead of competitive, a number different possibilities emerge. * * ** Another option - Obama screws up the US economy with some flaky socialism, and then we get someone like Palin who manages to screw up even more.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (57788)	11/13/2009 4:45:56 AM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217588

The Imperial Overstretch argument is much stronger than the article indicates. Since the Soviets broke first, the US was able to reduce military spending after the first Gulf War (actually during). The Soviet break up caused a drop in the prices of key raw material and the price of oil after 1991 also reduced the stress on the US economy, allowing a looser monetary policy, and helped increase economic growth rates, lowering the percentage level of the military burden. So to a large degree, the US got lucky, and was able to spend large amounts of GDP on the military and not pay too high a price for this.