elmat, at times you over-simplify, perhaps inadvertent but probably limited by capability & capacity ala systemic, and at times you over-complicate, likely due to inability and/or olive-ness comprehension, and cultural whatever and systemic whatever else - you know, all the concepts you like depend on almost as a rule - like grading olives
okay okay i apologise ahead of time for the seeming rudeness, but as i must keep you here, i shall try best to keep you here :0) besides, it is monday, and according to you, the thread is still full of cr@p.
re <<Regarding the trade imbalances between the 2 countries>>
let us avoid unnecessarily complicating what we need to focus on, set our frame of reference appropriately and lay out the correct premise.
(1) the brazils (even as brazil is not really an export nation, but then if the nation is segregated into beans and not-beans, obviously the beans must be traded) and japans of this world may find trade and trade balances more of an issue, whether bilaterally or multilaterally, and the usa and china would find trade / trade balance less of an issue, relative to brazils and japans
i do not consider the eu a continental economy, especially should internal stress go high enough
soya-growing brazil, albeit almost a continent, is not a continental economy in the true sense, but almost make the grade below eu on scale
japan and the rest of se asia are not continental
i reserve judgement re india given its history and current federal system
there may be only two true continental economies, namely usa and china
but there may be only one civilisation state.
(2) Re <<Japan ... rollover>>
advice, best not to bring japan as comparative into a discourse about china, for it only would show you up to be less-than-clued-in, and
fyi, rollover is at best only a footnote when discussing china economic development. too many companies regretted rollover protocol they tried in china, many just before they got subsumed or otherwise rendered.
rollover at the margin made a small difference, much less so than ... say overseas chinese diaspora did, again and only at the margin, during the earliest days from get-go.
similarly i would never reference peru in a conversation about brazil (i would however tee-up ukraines pre-war)
(3) to the mathematically-challenged and the history-does-not-matter sorts, a long time ago, at the get-go of my participation in si, i posited reference to 'continental economy' that which china is one, and noted some aspects of the characteristics of continental economy
Message 15490468
Message 15492838
Message 15617885
Message 15693504
Message 15876569 ... etc etc
(4) simply put, a continental economy might be treated as a separate universe, essentially self-contained, and given such, if left to develop on own, would develop all that is necessary for self-sustaining economy, even as neighbouring economies (continental and less-than-continental) make at-the-margin differences in velocity (direction / speed) and acceleration, and change in acceleration
(5) continental economies export almost as a by-the-way or even after-thought, and import by luxurious or temporary choice. we shall leave the issue of energy aside for now.
the by-the-way exports and by-volition imports may seem large by the destination geographies and source domains, but are just that, by-the-way and by-volition, to the continental economy
(6) thought experiments
(6-i) do you believe trade balance would be an issue to china if rmb was a reserve currency on par w/ usd?
(6-ii) do you believe trade balance should matter to usa at all given that usd is the reserve currency but for the truth that the post-war reserve currency system is on cusp of major changes?
i suggest to you the answers would be no and no.
(7) in so far as <<Time to deal with China in different way>>
which side-show bit players is going to do what to whom and why?
as you very correctly pointed out, <<How Brazil see China?
The bigger and the richer the better.
More imports from Brazil>>
the main and in truth only show on the stage is usa and china.
(8) now, dropping all the footnotes that be australia, brazil, canada, ... japan, ... zimbabwe, and focusing only on the two continentals, the two parallel universes. what happens when two continental economies interact?
- each have comparative advantages
- one spends / consumes and one saves / produces
- one does infrastructure and the other does facebook
- one practicing systemic reform and opening to explore, and the other crack-plugging the dikes of status quo
- one ruled by technocrats and by necessity deliberates and executes on some sort of a script, and the other ruled by whomever debating on whatever
- both feature respective deep-state, except one is transparent, known by all to be ruled by a deep-state, and the other cannot fathom much less admit being ruled by a deep-state
etc etc
we are in the process of finding out.
(9) however, unlike you, i do not find it necessary to flip-flop and change framework, perhaps because i believe math and histories matter
i suspect that when a framework continues to work, no reason to change
your drifting framework reflects on your lack of framework, or indicates polluted framework, likely by enveloping hate
your way-points of devolution is clear to the casual observer Message 31634906
(10) Footnote:
Re <<That created the Asian miracle that lasted just about 10 years and which melted in 1997-98.
The Hakka Chinese -who suffered during the Asian Meltdown of 97-98 pulled $115 billion from Indonesia alone. They were received with open arms in China.>>
Update, the <<Asian miracle>> is doing just fine, and similarly, the Hakka Chinese are doing great in Indonesia.
Something to do w/ VVV etc etc
(11) So, key takeaways for you, elmat,
concepts: continental economy and civilisation state
conjecture: suspect deep-state is
fact: math & histories matter
truth: important to get right framework and premise
guidance: your way-points of devolution is concerning Message 31634906 |
