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: Elroy Jetson who wrote (135341)

8/31/2017 11:26:38 AM

From: Maurice Winn

2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Arran Yuan
SirWalterRalegh

Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 217546

Hey TJ, look at the brilliant economic analysis Elroy has provided. Any thoughts on how fast the collapse would come? <<

If the Bank of China didn't keep expanding their money supply at such a rapid clip their entire economy would collapse leading to riots in the streets and a revolution as China's unsustainable economy ratchets back, reducing most incomes by 65% as China falls back to it's natural economic size.

>>

Anyway, why not keep expanding the money supply at the rapid clip if it's making the economy boom?

Then I'm puzzled as to the "natural economic size" of China.

Being a racist, I think potential "natural economic size" can be related to other economies with people of about the same race. For example, Singapore, Hong Kong and I'd throw in South Korea and Japan.

As evidence for my racial theory on natural economic size, I compare the natural economic size of chimpanzees who uniformly run hunter gatherer genocidal alpha male territorial dominance hierarchies with no patent office and no construction companies let alone Theory of Relativity inventors.

In the human realm where gene pools are much closer together, we can see other examples of variation but far less extreme that the chimpanzee example. On a micro scale of tiny groups of individuals with varying racial characteristics such as intelligence, we see fairly uniformly that races with IQ of 140 far exceed races with IQ of 80 and the distribution of results is progressive from 80 up to 140 and on up to 160 though at extremes the results go awol because simplistic economic returns are not the main measure of man.

Those high IQ races achieve it while being enmeshed among other races of average intelligence who all too often drain the smart producers of their efforts.

So China's "natural economic size" should be something like the same GDP per person as those of Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and let's throw in Japan too though Japan is genetically smarter than China in intelligence per capita though likely not in the smartest 10,000 people in the country.

With 10 times as many people in China, even with a lower average intelligence, it should be pretty easy to rustle up a quorum of supersonic smart people and not so simple in Japan. But there's the creativity/imagination variable too but that's fairly closely related to intelligence so simplistic IQ is near enough for government work.

Since it's the super smarts who really bring home the bacon [other than in Moslem and Jewish realms], China can produce a LOT of smart stuff compared with smaller Japan and tiny Hong Kong and teeny Singapore.

So China's "natural economic size" should be huge.

In fact, the sky's the limit, as there is not actually an upper bound to economic size. The idea that wealth is a function of natural resources and other found wealth such as gold or free fish in an ocean has been shown to be of the pre-Cyberspace era and actually pre-Industrial Revolution too though the industrial revolution did need a lot of materials to make stuff.

Little England with Virtuous Victorian Values ran a vast empire which should realistically include the USA though they went independent fairly early in the process. So 1300 million people out of 7 billion should be able to achieve huge economic size.

edit... I just remembered that China also has a 20% surplus of young males. Since it's men who really really bring home the bacon, while the women lurk in the cave reading make-up and clothing magaziins, that gives China an even bigger advantage. Their natural economic size should be huge as those swarms of males compete for female attention and mating rites. Yes, yes, I've heard of Madame Curie and Hedy Lamar ... who didn't actually invent anything to speak of. Compare them with good old Tesla back in the day, not to mention swarming hordes of other men.

Hi Rose .... giggle....

Mqurice