SI
SI
discoversearch

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: marcher who wrote (163675)10/13/2020 11:34:21 PM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
marcher

  Respond to of 217713
 
:0)
meantime pat buchanan is asking some silly questions, and depending on the answers, the troops are not going home but to be redeployed

small wonder tiny n.korea displaying huge rockets

highlights done by zero hedge

zerohedge.com

Buchanan: Is War With China Becoming Inevitable?

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

“The Indians are seeing 60,000 Chinese soldiers on their northern border,” Secretary of State Michael Pompeo ominously warned on Friday.

He spelled out what he meant to commentator Larry O’Connor:

“The Chinese have now begun to amass huge forces against India in the north. … They absolutely need the United States to be their ally and partner in this fight.”

China Is Leading the Global Recovery, Says ANZ’s Yeung

Pompeo had just returned from a Tokyo gathering of foreign ministers from the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad,” the group of four democracies — U.S., Japan, Australia, India — whose purpose is to discuss major Indo-Pacific geostrategic issues.

Exactly what kind of “ally and partner” the U.S. is to be “in the fight” between India and China over disputed terrain in the Himalayan Mountains was left unexplained. We have no vital interest in where the Line of Control between the most populous nations on earth should lie that would justify U.S. military involvement with a world power like China.

And the idea that Japan, whose territorial quarrel with China is over the tiny Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, thousands of miles away, would take sides in a Himalayan India-China conflict also seems ludicrous.

Yet, tensions are rising between the U.S. and China, as the list of ideological, political and economic clashes continues to lengthen.

And there is a transparent new reality: China seems in no mood to back down.

When, after a year of demonstrations for greater democracy, the Hong Kong government failed to quell the uprising, Beijing stepped in and took control. The U.S.-led democracies that had been cheering on the Hong Kong marchers and protesters did nothing, and they have done nothing since to reverse Xi Jinping’s political coup but prattle on about “values.”

Lately, the democracies have been protesting, and rightly so, the inhumane treatment of the Uighur peoples in Xinjiang in China’s west.

Han Chinese have been moved into the region to swamp the local population of Turkic and Muslim Uighurs and Kazakhs and bring about the demographic change Beijing desires. “Reeducation camps” have been established to cleanse Uighurs of their ethnic and religious identities and convert them into loyal and reliable Chinese Communists.

In a speech in late September, Xi declared that Beijing’s policy of eradicating the ethnic and religious identity of the minorities of Xinjiang through state-driven education has proven “totally correct.”

He vowed to imprint a Chinese identity “deep in the soul” of the peoples living there. “Our national minority work has been a success,” said Xi, “It must be held to for the long term.”

Xi makes no apology for — indeed, he is proud of — using state power to impose the state ideology upon the peoples he rules, and he openly repudiates our democratic values as inapplicable in his country.

Our rejection of China’s claims to virtually all of the reefs and atolls in the South China Sea is also being ignored. Beijing’s warnings grow louder and more pointed as the U.S. continues to send warships, the latest being the USS John McCain, close to islets claimed by China.

What is our strategy here? Are we prepared for a naval and air clash in these waters? What would be the U.S. strategic goal?

The Chinese are now responding angrily and defiantly to what they see as the provocations of sending high-level U.S. officials, and selling new weapons, to Taiwan, which China regards as its lost province.

Again, what is our purpose in playing the Taiwan card now?

If it is to provoke a fight, then are we prepared for a war in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea? Do we think the Chinese will capitulate?

Is this being done to “stand up to China” before Nov. 3?

Which is the party here that is engaged in bluster and bluff and which is the party that seems deadly serious as it views its vital interests and territorial rights as challenged?

There has been talk of the Quad evolving into an Asian NATO that embraces the major democracies in the Indo-Pacific Theater.

But the essence of NATO is Article V, where the U.S. commits itself to treat an attack on any one of some 30 nations as an attack on us.

Is there anything like this in the cards?

Australia, Japan and the U.S. are not going to war with China over its border with India, or its ethnic concentration camps in Xinjiang, or its seizing Hong Kong and atolls in the South China Sea.

When this election is over, this country has to think through what we are and are not willing to fight China for.

Xi Jinping dismisses our concerns over Hong Kong and the Uighurs, and he appears willing to fight for Taiwan and for what Beijing holds in the South China Sea, rather than see it permanently lost.

Are we?



To: marcher who wrote (163675)10/13/2020 11:47:05 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 217713
 
In the meantime, on another battle front, according to suspect Bloomberg (just because Bloomberg is suspect does not mean we do not consider what it chooses to publish, and certainly does not make particular facts wrong even as truth might be twisted here and there).

In any case all sorts of battles and deployments cost money, whether printed, saved, or taxed

bloomberg.com

China Is Loading Up a Five-Year Warning Shot to the U.S.
Whatever Beijing targets, competitors outside China will feel the pain. This time, it’s 5G and green tech.

Anjani Trivedi
14 October 2020, 06:00 GMT+8



China is targeting 5G. Anyone else in that space should brace themselves.

Photographer: China News Service/VCG/Getty

LISTEN TO ARTICLE
Investors are rooting for industrial companies, but China’s 14th five-year plan could bring a lot more stress to a post-Covid-19 global economy attempting a recovery. The world should watch carefully as Beijing gets ready to unveil a blueprint focused on high-tech industry.

Between trillions of dollars of fiscal stimulus, easy money and China’s broadly accelerating credit cycle, global industrial stocks have found a tailwind. Data out this week showed external machinery orders in Japan – a leading indicator of capital goods exports – rose almost 50% from August, the second straight increase that’s brought them back to pre-virus levels. All good news.

However, investors should exercise caution. An academic paper published in April by Xiao Cen and Wei Jiang of Columbia University’s business school and Vyacheslav Fos of Boston College found that Beijing’s industrial policies packaged together as five-year plans result in a shock to growth in targeted industries — inside and outside of China. “These plans were not preceded by low production or employment in the same industries in the U.S., but were followed by shrinkage of establishments and employment one to two years down the road,” the paper said. Based on valuations, returns, hiring decisions, no one – not even the stock market — had expected deterioration until the plans were unveiled.

In the past, this phenomenon struck things like furniture and toy companies, or so-called sunset industries. Washington could live with that. But now, China is increasingly focusing on sectors that both countries want to lead in, such as 5G and all things green. It’s a warning shot for whoever occupies the White House after the coming election.

The tension is understandable. When Beijing lays out its set of encouraged industries in a five-year plan, on average, the number of companies rises 30% relative to “non-treated” sectors. In the U.S., employment in those areas drops by 5% and firms by 7%. That said, the April study makes clear that China doesn’t subsidize industries based on trends for U.S. enterprises – they’re naturally displaced.

State planners meet later this month to review and approve the programs, which will be released at the National People’s Congress next year. The catchphrase “dual circulation” is expected to figure prominently. This strategy will primarily push domestic demand to drive economic growth, and be complemented by foreign investment and technology. So, what happens if China turns inward and moves up the technological food chain? Plenty of academic literature exists around the impact of China’s rise on working-class Americans via trade. The new study “directly connects” China and U.S. data at the business establishment level, the authors say, and shows the impact of government support. Industries that employed skilled labor (versus unskilled) saw a bigger drop.

That’s a warning for businesses globally. These are exactly the kinds of companies where investors are positioning themselves: high-tech machinery and automation. Another study found that Chinese competition in intellectual property “has a strong and robust negative impact” on long-run sales growth, realized patents and spending on research and development by U.S. firms, with a magnitude far greater for sectors prioritized by Beijing.

China has churned out five-year plans since the 1950s, borrowing from the former Soviet Union. Accompanying subsidies have given direction to the economy, businesses, officials and investors. Over the decades, the plans have helped develop agriculture and industry. Technology didn’t figure prominently. In the 12th plan, which ran from 2011 through 2015, the economic growth mix changed as the break-neck pace slowed from the years after accession to the World Trade Organization. The current one mentions “innovation” more than 200 times and pushes Made in China 2025, a policy that became a sticking point in the trade spat with the U.S. Programs and projects range from high-end manufacturing, big data and smart grids to cyberspace security. These are all sectors that are top of mind for global leaders and are faced with increasing protectionism.

China’s challenges to executing industrial policy are mounting as cash becomes tighter, international political headwinds rise and the global economy struggles under the coronavirus. Largesse is forced to become more targeted, with fiscal coffers under pressure and rising debt weighing more heavily. Recovery from Covid-19 has been bumpy, and unfavorable views toward China are at historic highs.

With such constraints in mind, planners are still showing ambition. They’ve honed in on new infrastructure, such as 5G networks and green technology. Building out the internet remains a top goal. Reforming state-owned enterprises is a priority, once again, with companies like Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai and Hisense Home Appliances Group Co. working through mixed ownership plans and pushing for higher shareholder returns, in theory. Meanwhile, the United Front Work Department, which reports directly to central party officials, is now focused on bringing private enterprises into the government fold.

China’s plans have often ended up creating oversupply in industries, leading to global overcapacity and severe pricing declines. But the country has learned. Flooding out competitors with volumes is undesirable. The coming plan won’t be like previous ones: Beijing knows it needs to push its way up and out of a grim economic reality. That should be a worry for competitors aiming at the same space.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Anjani Trivedi at atrivedi39@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Patrick McDowell at pmcdowell10@bloomberg.net

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.
LEARN MORE



To: marcher who wrote (163675)10/14/2020 12:05:53 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217713
 
Hyper ultra super mega bullish ... for gold

At some juncture must evolve from short TSLA / long DRD and long gold / long USD cash to short AAPL / long DRD and long gold / long silver

scmp.com

Most Americans view China as country of greatest threat to the US, says survey

Think tank report finds relatively broad-based support among thought leaders for banning Huawei Technologies from 5G networks

Four-fifths of national security and other experts in Asia, Europe and the US believe America would win a war right now with China, according to poll

A majority of Americans view China negatively and believe it is the country that presents the greatest threat to the United States, according to a survey of Asian, European and North American respondents by a prominent US think tank.

Four-fifths of national security and other experts in Asia, Europe and the US believe America would win a war right now with China, according to the poll of the American public and of Asian, European and American “thought leaders” – experts from business, academia, human rights and national security communities – released Tuesday by the Centre for International and Strategic Studies (CSIS).

But that number fell to just over half when respondents were asked who would come out ahead a decade from now. China has been expanding its armed forces rapidly, although the US remains far ahead by most metrics.

The report, Mapping the Future of US China Policy, also found relatively broad-based support among thought leaders for banning Huawei Technologies from 5G networks, even as many recommended staying selectively engaged with China and not following the Trump administration’s “decoupling” strategy

etc etc