|
Was browsing through Consumerist as always and came upon this, didnt read the entire article though. Just wanted to express my 2cents.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2010-01-07-made-in-china-products_N.htm
Im sure most of us are aware that most products that you're using are manufactured in some remote sweat shop or factory in China. Maybe if you go on some random forum, you might start seeing 1 post accounts advertising mainstream designer apparel for ridiculous prices or on Ebay merchants putting up 10 exact replica G Star jackets all sold @ 1/4 of its retail price. The fact is that we do produce a lot of shit, bootleg replicas of products, which falls apart or might kill you. Although I cant deny that bootleg products are all abysmal quality.
What I just find totally contradicting is the fact that people criticize the products, yet continue to support them. Again, cant blame them, since practically every consumer product can be manufactured in China. But the public seems to blame every manufacture in China for this imperfection. In my opinion, majority of these products come from shady, illegal, unlicensed and mismanaged bootleggers. China is roughly almost the same size as the U.S but more than 4x the population inhabit PRC, its impossible to manage without extensive corruption in the administration. Every so often you see hundreds of poor coal miners dying because of illegal nonadministrative mining or corporations trying to save money opt not to regulate safety equipment or the environment around them.
All-in-all to be honest China doesnt even need to worry about losing its foreign economic dependability*, in my view its the total opposite. Even though I was never really fond of China, since all the shit we get from everyone is true. But sooner or later if not now, everything you own is made by us and either sold to you at ridiculous prices. Muhahahaha!!
   
|
I feel sorry for the Chinese, they have no human rights.
|
We would have decent sense of human rights if we werent totally suppressed by the Communist government. As least we're getting more capitalistic, which I dont even want to know if its a good thing.
|
People do what's immediately good for themselves unless they are aware of the world around them, a rare case.
How many times do people worry about the place that manufactures their stuff. If it's not gonna hurt them, why bother? That's the common mentality.
|
I don't buy stuff from china except computer parts I would NEVER buy food or meds from China. Lead poisoning no thx.
|
Ya its good. Capitalism come with freedom and pie and baseball!
|
The only way to get rid of this huge ass debt we owe you guys is by war or destruction of one of the two countries.
|
capitalism comes with freedom? i wish 
i like a lot of the bootleg stuff from china, but the stuff i like most are those t-shirts with random english words on them, or a bunch of letters separated randomly by spaces
|
In China it's one of those examples of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. TBH, other than the media, China's policies are as about as right-wing as you can get.
That being said, the poor in China live a really, really, low quality life. That's just one of those trade-offs in being able to manufacture products as such a cheap price.
To the topic about counterfeits, and human rights, to most Han mainland Chinese, they couldn't give a crap bit more. Most people are just caught up trying to earn money and nurture a successful family. They don't have time to give a *insert bad word here* about what's happening to coal miners or Tibet people. China is very competitive and it's one of those dog eat dog worlds.
|
On January 09 2010 09:16 Disregard wrote: We would have decent sense of human rights if we werent totally suppressed by the Communist government. As least we're getting more capitalistic, which I dont even want to know if its a good thing. capitalism just makes money the center of the culture. i don't really know a better way, but fuck 9 to 5.
|
On January 09 2010 09:28 David Mudkips wrote: The only way to get rid of this huge ass debt we owe you guys is by war or destruction of one of the two countries.
Or you guys could start saving? We had a big debt (relatively) and got rid of it. Americans just don't seem to care.
|
On January 09 2010 09:13 Whiplash wrote: I feel sorry for the Chinese, they have no human rights.
oh god
i feel sorry for your ancestors, they didnt expect you to dodge natural selection
|
I know, maybe capitalism is closer to democracy. Whenever you think of a democracy, you think of sort of a free market. Of course its not limited to this type of government.
|
On January 09 2010 09:17 Whiplash wrote: Ya its good. Capitalism come with freedom and pie and baseball!
Most important of all, the freedom to hate pie and baseball if you want to!
|
Well people are just criticising the government for not doing more to stop the illegal industry. Yes they are indirectly "supporting it" in their daily lives but they are detached from it, similar to deforestation. So it's hard to give a shit when it affects your comfortable life too much.
|
On January 09 2010 09:36 Disregard wrote: Whenever you think of a democracy, you think of sort of a free market. Not really.
|
On January 09 2010 09:31 Durak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 09:28 David Mudkips wrote: The only way to get rid of this huge ass debt we owe you guys is by war or destruction of one of the two countries. Or you guys could start saving? We had a big debt (relatively) and got rid of it. Americans just don't seem to care.
Hell, I know I care; seems like the government is always interested in their own agenda than the will of the people (shocking).
|
It's not hard to find good quality stuff in China
|
On January 09 2010 09:45 writer22816 wrote: It's not hard to find good quality stuff in China
agreed
|
if we're going onto the topic of girls, i'm just going to throw out that chinese girls are either hot or ugly. not much in between. koreans, on the other hand...
|
On January 09 2010 09:51 majesty.k)seRapH wrote: if we're going onto the topic of girls, i'm just going to throw out that chinese girls are either hot or ugly. not much in between. koreans, on the other hand...
like this?
|
China is being stupid. Their people are working their asses off and their government is giving it away for free to the US and the top .1% richest Chinese. Embracing capitalism was a good idea but that doesn't mean it has to be a client state to the US.
Not to mention the human rights in general.
|
On January 09 2010 09:36 Thegilaboy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 09:17 Whiplash wrote: Ya its good. Capitalism come with freedom and pie and baseball! Most important of all, the freedom to hate pie and baseball if you want to! Okay kid, we have to draw the line somewhere.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On January 09 2010 10:16 Glaucus wrote: China is being stupid. Their people are working their asses off and their government is giving it away for free to the US and the top .1% richest Chinese. Embracing capitalism was a good idea but that doesn't mean it has to be a client state to the US.
Not to mention the human rights in general. Uh no, they're not stupid. They're keeping prices low so people will buy made in china. They're making lots of money by keeping it that way. How is being a client state bad? You get to have a huge trade surplus. Lastly, who cares about human rights when the standard of living is rising so fast.
|
pretty hilarious how you will hardly meet an actual chinese crying about his human rights( mostly they happy with what it is) but 80% of the immigrants and outcasts and some brainwashed white filth always ragging about the matter real soon china is going to whoop some serious ass economically, stop the bs especially if you dont know much about it. Its like tibet outcry all over
|
On January 09 2010 10:26 T.O.P. wrote: Uh no, they're not stupid. They're keeping prices low so people will buy made in china. They're making lots of money by keeping it that way. How is being a client state bad? You get to have a huge trade surplus. Lastly, who cares about human rights when the standard of living is rising so fast.
How are they making money by keeping prices low? If you get more money for your product that means the price has to be higher. If you keep the price really low you get a really low amount of money. You realize it's the same thing? What use is having a huge 'trade surplus' if that means you export almost everything when you get nothing in return? The point of exporting is so you can import stuff yourself too.
Chinese people work hard and then all the stuff they produce goes to the US and Europe. US pays money but US has huge depth and is never going to replay those depths. So what use is the dollar?
When are the Chinese people going to get some stuff the Americans produced for them?
How does China need other countries to consume their wealth for them to be rich? Doesn't that make China poorer? Imagine if China could keep all the capital they produce.
brainwashed white filth always ragging about the matter
lol
If I had the same rights as a Chinese I would fight to the death against my government. Life isn't worth anything if you aren't free.
The Chinese crying about humans rights are all in prison being tortured or too scared? Wasn't there a rebellion once?
|
As long as there is an infinite demand for cheap goods, workers will always get exploited. The end. GG NO RE.
|
On January 09 2010 10:47 Glaucus wrote:
It's not as simple as you make it to be. Comments below.
How are they making money by keeping prices low? If you get more money for your product that means the price has to be higher. If you keep the price really low you get a really low amount of money. You realize it's the same thing?
You are only looking at it from the point of supply and demand. There's also employment/unemployment involved. By keeping the prices low, there is a higher demand for goods. A high demand for goods means more jobs for Chinese citizens; lower unemployment rate is usually desirable.
Chinese people work hard and then all the stuff they produce goes to the US and Europe. US pays money but US has huge depth and is never going to replay those depths. So what use is the dollar?
Yes, it's true that US has huge debts and gives China a lot of 'IOU's and China has no use for those IOUs. However, a high trade surplus is good for a developing country because it increases the country's total output, and also lowers unemployment.
When are the Chinese people going to get some stuff the Americans produced for them?
They are importing quite a bit from America; for example, Boeings.
How does China need other countries to consume their wealth for them to be rich? Doesn't that make China poorer? Imagine if China could keep all the capital they produce.
Because China is benefiting from international trades. If China does not export, its goods will be even cheaper, because countries like America are pulling the prices up.
There is no such thing as "consume their wealth", with trade, most countries gain.
You are suggest autarky, which is one of the main factors that drove America from a recession to the Great Depression.
I would suggest you do some reading on free-trade. Maybe starting with the Heckscher-Ohlin model and see how countries mutually benefit.
|
On January 09 2010 10:47 Glaucus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 10:26 T.O.P. wrote: Uh no, they're not stupid. They're keeping prices low so people will buy made in china. They're making lots of money by keeping it that way. How is being a client state bad? You get to have a huge trade surplus. Lastly, who cares about human rights when the standard of living is rising so fast. How are they making money by keeping prices low? If you get more money for your product that means the price has to be higher. If you keep the price really low you get a really low amount of money. You realize it's the same thing? What use is having a huge 'trade surplus' if that means you export almost everything when you get nothing in return? The point of exporting is so you can import stuff yourself too. Chinese people work hard and then all the stuff they produce goes to the US and Europe. US pays money but US has huge depth and is never going to replay those depths. So what use is the dollar? When are the Chinese people going to get some stuff the Americans produced for them? How does China need other countries to consume their wealth for them to be rich? Doesn't that make China poorer? Imagine if China could keep all the capital they produce. lol If I had the same rights as a Chinese I would fight to the death against my government. Life isn't worth anything if you aren't free. The Chinese crying about humans rights are all in prison being tortured or too scared? Wasn't there a rebellion once?
That was such an ignorant post. They have much to gain from keeping prices low. There's no competition and that's how China is growing financially. Labor is so cheap that they can afford it. Don't criticize their business plan, it's one of the things that are doing right.
And when are Chinese going to get American-produced items? Do you understand how the foreign market works? What makes an american product better? Why would anyone want an american product? American products are overpriced when compared to Chinese products. If you want a more reliable product, they are available to you in China. You just have to pay more.
You would rebel? That's because you're an American and you've had your rights for your entire life. China is a completely different entity. Different culture, different traditions, different lifestyles. Think about a democratic process in China. How much would it fail? With 1.3 billion people, mobocracy is a legitimate threat. Different circumstances call for different solutions.
|
On January 09 2010 10:47 Glaucus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 10:26 T.O.P. wrote: Uh no, they're not stupid. They're keeping prices low so people will buy made in china. They're making lots of money by keeping it that way. How is being a client state bad? You get to have a huge trade surplus. Lastly, who cares about human rights when the standard of living is rising so fast. How are they making money by keeping prices low? If you get more money for your product that means the price has to be higher. If you keep the price really low you get a really low amount of money. You realize it's the same thing? What use is having a huge 'trade surplus' if that means you export almost everything when you get nothing in return? The point of exporting is so you can import stuff yourself too. Chinese people work hard and then all the stuff they produce goes to the US and Europe. US pays money but US has huge depth and is never going to replay those depths. So what use is the dollar? When are the Chinese people going to get some stuff the Americans produced for them? How does China need other countries to consume their wealth for them to be rich? Doesn't that make China poorer? Imagine if China could keep all the capital they produce. lol If I had the same rights as a Chinese I would fight to the death against my government. Life isn't worth anything if you aren't free. The Chinese crying about humans rights are all in prison being tortured or too scared? Wasn't there a rebellion once?
Hahaha you are so stupid uninformed about international trade it is almost revolting.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On January 09 2010 10:47 Glaucus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 10:26 T.O.P. wrote: Uh no, they're not stupid. They're keeping prices low so people will buy made in china. They're making lots of money by keeping it that way. How is being a client state bad? You get to have a huge trade surplus. Lastly, who cares about human rights when the standard of living is rising so fast. How are they making money by keeping prices low? If you get more money for your product that means the price has to be higher. If you keep the price really low you get a really low amount of money. You realize it's the same thing? What use is having a huge 'trade surplus' if that means you export almost everything when you get nothing in return? The point of exporting is so you can import stuff yourself too. Chinese people work hard and then all the stuff they produce goes to the US and Europe. US pays money but US has huge depth and is never going to replay those depths. So what use is the dollar? When are the Chinese people going to get some stuff the Americans produced for them? How does China need other countries to consume their wealth for them to be rich? Doesn't that make China poorer? Imagine if China could keep all the capital they produce. If China raises prices by making the Yuan worth more, then it's stuff won't be as cheap and people won't buy as much Chinese products. Factory owners are already moving their clothing factories to countries like Vietnam because salaries in China are too high. The Chinese do import, they import Western technology and investment. Because the Chinese earns a lot of money through exports, it could reinvest that money into the country and raise the standard of living for it's people.
It seems like you don't understand economics at all.
And unlike Westerners, most Chinese don't give a fuck about human rights. Human rights is just something that Westerners made up. Most Chinese agree with the decision to kill the British man who brought heroin to China. As I said before, who cares about Human Rights when economic issues affect your daily life much more closely.
|
On January 09 2010 10:47 Glaucus wrote:lol If I had the same rights as a Chinese I would fight to the death against my government. Life isn't worth anything if you aren't free.
no you would still be sucking on your moms tit while pointing fingers
your life isnt worth anything regardless of your personal freedom, get over yourself. You have no idea what it takes for a monster like china to even exist. Internet william wallace lmao.
funny thing you probably have same rights as chinese do, your small head isnt quite fit to accept it
|
On January 09 2010 11:07 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 10:47 Glaucus wrote:On January 09 2010 10:26 T.O.P. wrote: Uh no, they're not stupid. They're keeping prices low so people will buy made in china. They're making lots of money by keeping it that way. How is being a client state bad? You get to have a huge trade surplus. Lastly, who cares about human rights when the standard of living is rising so fast. How are they making money by keeping prices low? If you get more money for your product that means the price has to be higher. If you keep the price really low you get a really low amount of money. You realize it's the same thing? What use is having a huge 'trade surplus' if that means you export almost everything when you get nothing in return? The point of exporting is so you can import stuff yourself too. Chinese people work hard and then all the stuff they produce goes to the US and Europe. US pays money but US has huge depth and is never going to replay those depths. So what use is the dollar? When are the Chinese people going to get some stuff the Americans produced for them? How does China need other countries to consume their wealth for them to be rich? Doesn't that make China poorer? Imagine if China could keep all the capital they produce. If China raises prices by making the Yuan worth more, then it's stuff won't be as cheap and people won't buy as much Chinese products. Factory owners are already moving their clothing factories to countries like Vietnam because salaries in China are too high. The Chinese do import, they import Western technology and investment. Because the Chinese earns a lot of money through exports, it could reinvest that money into the country and raise the standard of living for it's people. It seems like you don't understand economics at all. And unlike Westerners, most Chinese don't give a fuck about human rights. Human rights is just something that Westerners made up. Most Chinese agree with the decision to kill the British man who brought heroin to China. As I said before, who cares about Human Rights when economic issues affect your daily life much more closely.
In fact, China is trying to keep its Yuan below market value 
edit:
1 ignorant post, 100 people jump on it <3 TL
|
On January 09 2010 11:02 Cambium wrote: There is no such thing as "consume their wealth", with trade, most countries gain.
Yes there is because there is no real trading.. Chinese people produce capital. Then this wealth is exported to the US for dollars. Then those dollars are given back as loans to the US. Loans the US can't afford. You export so you can import. If you only export you aren't trading.
If the west stopped importing all these products the Chinese produce then the prices will drop, yes. But it will also allow the Chinese to enjoy the fruits of their labor themselves.
Ok. Let's make half of China unemployed and let's not export stuff. Now what? Now Chinese work less hard and have more wealth to consume as wealth isn't exported. How is this bad?
|
On January 09 2010 11:02 asianskill wrote: You would rebel? That's because you're an American and you've had your rights for your entire life. China is a completely different entity. Different culture, different traditions, different lifestyles. Think about a democratic process in China. How much would it fail? With 1.3 billion people, mobocracy is a legitimate threat. Different circumstances call for different solutions.
this brotha speaks the truth
this is a very good part, pay attention glaucus
edit: actually nevermind, i just read your last post and it was atrocious. Brb regaining hope in humanity
|
Humans rights are universal. It's silly to say Chinese culture or problems of keeping China together override that. If China can only be kept together by violating human rights then China should dissolve.
|
On January 09 2010 11:13 Glaucus wrote: Humans rights are universal. It's silly to say Chinese culture or problems of keeping China together override that. If China can only be kept together by violating human rights then China should dissolve.
ya fucken dumb or someshit? universal what? cannibals? religions? bushmen? WHATS WRONG WITH YOU LOL
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On January 09 2010 11:10 Glaucus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 11:02 Cambium wrote: There is no such thing as "consume their wealth", with trade, most countries gain.
If the west stopped importing all these products the Chinese produce then the prices will drop, yes. But it will also allow the Chinese to enjoy the fruits of their labor themselves. Ok. Let's make half of China unemployed and let's not export stuff. Now what? Now Chinese work less hard and have more wealth to consume as wealth isn't exported. How is this bad? First. No the Chinese would not be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In fact, they would all be unemployed cause there are no western customers.
If they are all unemployed, the Chinese people will rebel against the Communist government and remove them from power like during the dynasty era where people used the Mandate of Heaven to remove emperors from power.
If the Communist Government falls, China will be a big mess.
|
On January 09 2010 11:10 Glaucus wrote: Ok. Let's make half of China unemployed and let's not export stuff. Now what? Now Chinese work less hard and have more wealth to consume as wealth isn't exported. How is this bad?
If an unemployment of 10% in the U.S. is causing you (or maybe not you because you don't seem to understand the implications) shit your pants, what makes you think the Chinese government will abet an unemployment of 50% (1 in every 2 citizens is unemployed) just to keep the country's "wealth"...?
Just wtf? I decided not to respond to you any more...
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
Glaucus is clearly trolling.
|
On January 09 2010 11:18 T.O.P. wrote: Glaucus is clearly trolling.
|
I'm not trolling. What I am saying is completely main stream. There's even the decleration of universal rights. As for the economics, they are extremely simple.
No one can explain to me why it's wrong.
If an unemployment of 10% in the U.S. is causing you shit your pants, what makes you think the Chinese government will abet an unemployment of 50% (1 in every 2 citizens is unemployed) just to keep the country's "wealth"...?
You realize why people work right? They don't work for fun. They work because it's productive to society so they get money in return.
I'm not saying China should make 50% unemployed. I'm just asking what's so bad if you don't have to work and get to keep all the capital you produce? Right now they work very hard and get almost nothing because it goes to the west. No one seems to understand. This is basic economy guys? Let's say Chinese work very hard and the stuff they produced are dumped into the ocean because if they aren't then they can't keep producing these goods continuously. Now let's just cut production in half and consume the stuff instead of dumping it in the ocean. What's so bad about that?
Yes, if you cut half the population off from sharing in the wealth produced those people will rebel. But that's something different. Just because you are employed that doesn't mean you share in the wealth. Governments can create tons of unproductive jobs. It doesn't mean anything in itself.
So many economic fallacies going about there...
sassme, I think it was you that edited out of your message something in the lines of saying that China needs the west to consume their goods because otherwise there is no one to consume it and there's no point in producing. Do you even realize what that means? Isn't the point in producing that you get to keep the stuff you produce? Chinese can consume their own good perfectly well. You realize money isn't worth anything in itself?
|
On January 09 2010 10:16 Glaucus wrote: China is being stupid. Their people are working their asses off and their government is giving it away for free to the US and the top .1% richest Chinese. Embracing capitalism was a good idea but that doesn't mean it has to be a client state to the US.
Not to mention the human rights in general.
Why are you spouting this unfounded nonsense? I just hate the huge pile of misconceptions that exists regarding this topic. First of all, you make it sound like China is a unique case in this respect, while half of South East Asia has done this or is doing it atm. Secondly, the SEA developmental model has proven its value, it has worked for other countries. While yes, the countries who follow this model are the workshop of the world for a certain amount of time, they do get a lot of benefit out of this through spillovers from e.g. backward linkages, by forcing joint ventures (in whatever form), capital inflow through FDI etc. Which are all pretty much a conditio sine qua non for an economy in transition to evolve from sheer poverty and backwardness (the state of things at the end of the Cultural Revolution) to full industrialization. China is pretty much an example for any NIC. Admittedly, how the wealth is divided etc (be it after or before reaching industrialized state) is a whole other discussion but the GINI coefficient for e.g. the US isn't exactly spectacular either.
And don't get me started on the whole issue regarding the trade imbalance between the US and China, there is a big gap between public (political) perception and economic reality. I'd give you the paper I had to write on this matter for one of my courses but it's in Dutch. -,,-
|
Foeffa isn't it strange that the countries that produce are poor and the ones that consume are rich? Don't you get rich by producing and poorer by consuming? How do you resolve this paradox?
|
On January 09 2010 11:32 Glaucus wrote:I'm not trolling. What I am saying is completely main stream. There's even the decleration of universal rights. As for the economics, they are extremely simple. No one can explain to me why it's wrong. Show nested quote +If an unemployment of 10% in the U.S. is causing you shit your pants, what makes you think the Chinese government will abet an unemployment of 50% (1 in every 2 citizens is unemployed) just to keep the country's "wealth"...?
You realize why people work right? They don't work for fun. They work because it's productive to society so they get money in return. I'm not saying China should make 50% unemployed. I'm just asking what's so bad if you don't have to work and get to keep all the capital you produce? Right now they work very hard and get almost nothing because it goes to the west. No one seems to understand. This is basic economy guys? Let's say Chinese work very hard and the stuff they produced are dumped into the ocean because if they aren't then they can't keep producing these goods continuously. Now let's just cut production in half and consume the stuff instead of dumping it in the ocean. What's so bad about that? Yes, if you cut half the population off from sharing in the wealth produced those people will rebel. But that's something different. Just because you are employed that doesn't mean you share in the wealth. Governments can create tons of unproductive jobs. It doesn't mean anything in itself. So many economic fallacies going about there... sassme, I think it was you that edited out of your message something in the lines of saying that China needs the west to consume their goods because otherwise there is no one to consume it and there's no point in producing. Do you even realize what that means? Isn't the point in producing that you get to keep the stuff you produce? Chinese can consume their own good perfectly well. You realize money isn't worth anything in itself?
Can you give me a reason why the west would not "consume" its goods?
|
On January 09 2010 11:37 Glaucus wrote: Foeffa isn't it strange that the countries that produce are poor and the ones that consume are rich? Don't you get rich by producing and poorer by consuming? How do you resolve this paradox?
Isn't strange that all the nations that are consuming more than producing going through major recessions?
Times are changing. I give it ten years until the United States will never enjoy the same consumerism we enjoy today.
|
On January 09 2010 11:37 Glaucus wrote: Foeffa isn't it strange that the countries that produce are poor and the ones that consume are rich? Don't you get rich by producing and poorer by consuming? How do you resolve this paradox?
Which is why China is developing rapidly while North America is in a recession... You're contradicting yourself.
|
Ooh wow now suddenly people are turning around...
Can you give me a reason why the west would not "consume" its goods?
They would of course if they can. Why would you be poor if you can be rich? Because they feel guilty? You are asking the wrong question.
Which is why China is developing rapidly while North America is in a recession... You're contradicting yourself.
Wait, China is doing a seemingly irrational thing so that the US goes into a recession?
|
On January 09 2010 11:44 Glaucus wrote:Ooh wow now suddenly people are turning around... They would of course if they can. Why would you be poor if you can be rich? Because they feel guilty? You are asking the wrong question.
No, I'm not coming around. You didn't even give me a legitimate answer.
|
On January 09 2010 11:44 Glaucus wrote:
Wait, China is doing a seemingly irrational thing so that the US goes into a recession?
I'm sure China is going through economic prosperity while the rest of the world is in economic turmoil because of irrational ideas.
|
On January 09 2010 11:37 Glaucus wrote: Foeffa isn't it strange that the countries that produce are poor and the ones that consume are rich? Don't you get rich by producing and poorer by consuming? How do you resolve this paradox?
That 's a huge generalization and a wrong one at that and your paradox doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint. Countries that produce aren't poor by definition. The causality is actually the other way around: poor countries produce (initially). Omitting the reason why they are poor, the fact remains that any economy that is at a low(er) tier of technology has comparably high percentage of it's economy dedicated to the secondary sector because that is the way they can make money with a comparably low technological level. In general the focus of their economy will shift to the tertiary sector (or the manufacturing of technologically more advanced goods) as soon as their level of know-how and technology improves. This is a global trend, except for Sub-Saharan Africa but that is due to the problem of the resource curse and becoming a rentier state.
|
The answer you want is my point in the first place. Maybe you need to reread the thread.
|
Tbh I think discussing this with you is, no offense, a bit futile because you don't seem to grasp the fundamentals and economic trends that constitute the background of this so-called problem you try to talk about. :/
|
Ooh the age old fallacy. I don't actually need to have a background in economics because the issues so far have been extremely simple one. You should be able to explain them to a child.
Also, the arguments I made aren't actually my arguments but come from people with degrees in economics. Yes, not the mainstream ones. So not the ones who'se silly ideology caused the crisis in the first place.
|
On January 09 2010 11:59 Glaucus wrote: Ooh the age old fallacy. I don't actually need to have a background in economics because the issues so far have been extremely simple one. You should be able to explain them to a child.
Also, the arguments I made aren't actually my arguments but come from people with degrees in economics. Yes, not the mainstream ones. So not the ones who'se silly ideology caused the crisis in the first place.
Go back to 4chan please.
/b/
|
On January 09 2010 11:32 Glaucus wrote: I'm not saying China should make 50% unemployed. I'm just asking what's so bad if you don't have to work and get to keep all the capital you produce? Right now they work very hard and get almost nothing because it goes to the west. No one seems to understand. This is basic economy guys? Let's say Chinese work very hard and the stuff they produced are dumped into the ocean because if they aren't then they can't keep producing these goods continuously. Now let's just cut production in half and consume the stuff instead of dumping it in the ocean. What's so bad about that?
how are you going to "keep all the capital you produce" if you don't work? you aren't producing shit if you don't work. you can't just "consume the stuff" like you suggest. what the fuck is a chinese family going to do with the thousands of stuffed animals or whatever it is they make? i really hope you are trolling because it would be a fucking tragedy for someone to be actually as ignorant as you are
|
On January 09 2010 12:22 skronch wrote: how are you going to "keep all the capital you produce" if you don't work? you aren't producing shit if you don't work.
Of course. But wouldn't it be better to produce 50% and keep all of it than to produce 100% and get to consume only 10%?
you can't just "consume the stuff" like you suggest. what the fuck is a chinese family going to do with the thousands of stuffed animals or whatever it is they make?
There's not enough Chinese demand? They don't have to produce the exact same thing, you know? And even stuffed animals, why wouldn't Chinese children want those when western ones do?
Main point is that when stuffed animals are produced they could also have produced something else.
i really hope you are trolling because it would be a fucking tragedy for someone to be actually as ignorant as you are
makes me sad...
Just expressing what is to be the new mainstream economics. China itself is actually already coming around exactly because of the recession in the US. China exports it's wealth to the US in return for paper. China invests in the US government and props up the dollar. the US keeps squandering all the wealth China creates. Why would China go on with this? How does the average Chinese person benefit from this? No one can explain this to me. No one even tried. Just insults
|
On January 09 2010 12:27 Glaucus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 12:22 skronch wrote: how are you going to "keep all the capital you produce" if you don't work? you aren't producing shit if you don't work.
Of course. But wouldn't it be better to produce 50% and keep all of it than to produce 100% and get to consume only 10%? could you explain this in a way that makes sense?
a worker doesn't produce money; he produces a product. what good does it do him to produce 50% of something and keep all of it if it is something that is of no use to him? where is this producing 100% and consuming 10% babble coming from?
|
On January 09 2010 12:27 Glaucus wrote:Show nested quote + you can't just "consume the stuff" like you suggest. what the fuck is a chinese family going to do with the thousands of stuffed animals or whatever it is they make?
There's not enough Chinese demand? They don't have to produce the exact same thing, you know? And even stuffed animals, why wouldn't Chinese children want those when western ones do? Main point is that when stuffed animals are produced they could also have produced something else.
ok if you had even taken the most elementary economics course, or even read a 1-2-3 economics for kidz picutre book you would know why they are producing thousands of stuffed animals. it's called international trading and commerce buddy. trade mutually benefits individuals, and attempts to ensure that the people who are good at something continue doing what theyre good at, instead of wasting time doing some other shit. china doesn't have everything it needs within its own borders, and the chinese can't make everything they so please. let's see if "chinese families' can produce their own diamond rings, mine their own uranium for nuclear power, grow their own wheat, design their own cell phones, and cook up some escargot. holy shit you have nearly no idea what is going on do you.
|
Chinese people want plasma TVs. They want stuffed animals. They want all these things they produce. And if they had them they would be much richer. But they can't afford them currently because of the yuan-dollar relation.
Someone else talked about jobs. People claim that if the west stopped consuming Chinese people would all go unemployed and that would be bad. I'm just saying that having 100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal.
People seem to think huge US consumption drives the global economy. The fact is it drags down the global economy. Chinese production, and production from other low wage countries, drive the global economy. But Chinese people aren't benefiting from this. The people in the US and in the west are the ones with all the consumer goods. They are enjoying them and they are to be wealthy. Yet they are dragging down the economy. And how did they pay for them? By loaning money from China...
|
On January 09 2010 09:30 peidongyang wrote: In China it's one of those examples of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. TBH, other than the media, China's policies are as about as right-wing as you can get.
That being said, the poor in China live a really, really, low quality life. That's just one of those trade-offs in being able to manufacture products as such a cheap price.
To the topic about counterfeits, and human rights, to most Han mainland Chinese, they couldn't give a crap bit more. Most people are just caught up trying to earn money and nurture a successful family. They don't have time to give a *insert bad word here* about what's happening to coal miners or Tibet people. China is very competitive and it's one of those dog eat dog worlds.
The U.S. is probably more so.
Rich getting ridiculous wealthy, while the poor is left to die.
|
On January 09 2010 12:41 Glaucus wrote: Chinese people want plasma TVs. They want stuffed animals. They want all these things they produce. And if they had them they would be much richer. But they can't afford them currently because of the yuan-dollar relation.
Someone else talked about jobs. People claim that if the west stopped consuming Chinese people would all go unemployed and that would be bad. I'm just saying that having 100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal.
People seem to think huge US consumption drives the global economy. The fact is it drags down the global economy. Chinese production, and production from other low wage countries, drive the global economy. But Chinese people aren't benefiting from this. The people in the US and in the west are the ones with all the consumer goods. They are enjoying them and they are to be wealthy. Yet they are dragging down the economy.
ok i stopped at "100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal"
how is this even suppose to logically work out?
my brain is about to invert itself and explode
clearly completely ignorant or an awful troll
|
On January 09 2010 12:41 Glaucus wrote: Chinese people want plasma TVs. They want stuffed animals. They want all these things they produce. And if they had them they would be much richer. But they can't afford them currently because of the yuan-dollar relation.
Someone else talked about jobs. People claim that if the west stopped consuming Chinese people would all go unemployed and that would be bad.
I'm just saying that having 100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal.
People seem to think huge US consumption drives the global economy. The fact is it drags down the global economy. Chinese production, and production from other low wage countries, drive the global economy. But Chinese people aren't benefiting from this. The people in the US and in the west are the ones with all the consumer goods. They are enjoying them and they are to be wealthy. Yet they are dragging down the economy. And how did they pay for them? By loaning money from China...
HAHAHAHAHA
+ Show Spoiler +Did I read this correctly, or did I get trolled? HARD?
|
On January 09 2010 12:46 blue_arrow wrote: ok i stopped at "100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal"
how is this even suppose to logically work out?
my brain is about to invert itself and explode
clearly completely ignorant or an awful troll
If I have a job and I earn 3000 euro a month how is that better than not having a job and earning 3000 euro a month as well? Is that so hard to see?
|
On January 09 2010 12:50 Glaucus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 12:46 blue_arrow wrote: ok i stopped at "100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal"
how is this even suppose to logically work out?
my brain is about to invert itself and explode
clearly completely ignorant or an awful troll If I have a job and I earn 3000 euro a month how is that better than not having a job and earning 3000 euro a month as well?
Just wtf?
Which government is going to pay you 3000 euro a month for doing nothing? I'm moving there tomorrow, seriously.
|
|
On January 09 2010 12:50 Cambium wrote: Just wtf?
Which government is going to pay you 3000 euro a month for doing nothing? I'm moving there tomorrow, seriously.
No. That's not the point. I never said you are going to have more by not working.
And yes there are governments that pay people money for doing stuff that is as productive as doing nothing. If those people did literally nothing just as much capital would be generated. And then they would be free to create actual capital and gain more purchasing power.
Anyway, I won't say anything more since no one actually reads what I write while being immature and claiming I am trolling. This is not productive.
|
On January 09 2010 12:50 Glaucus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 12:46 blue_arrow wrote: ok i stopped at "100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment everything else being equal"
how is this even suppose to logically work out?
my brain is about to invert itself and explode
clearly completely ignorant or an awful troll If I have a job and I earn 3000 euro a month how is that better than not having a job and earning 3000 euro a month as well? Is that so hard to see?
If everybody did this your 3000 euro will be worth ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING. Look dude, if you wanna live and consume, someone's going to have to take the shit. If everyone does nothing, nothing gets made, and you're money is USELESSS.
|
you do realize that 100% unemployment means that nobody has a job right? and that 0% unemployment means everybody is employed right? what you mean is 100% employment, and nobody measures employment rates by saying X% employment, because it's redundant as the people who have jobs usually vastly outnumber those without.
i can't believe i actually explained something as basic as this to anybody.
|
On January 09 2010 12:59 peidongyang wrote: If everybody did this your 3000 euro will be worth ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING. Look dude, if you wanna live and consume, someone's going to have to take the shit. If everyone does nothing, nothing gets made, and you're money is USELESSS.
Finally some is saying something sensible. Now let's apply this to the US-China relationship.
|
On January 09 2010 12:41 Glaucus wrote: Chinese people want plasma TVs. They want stuffed animals. They want all these things they produce. And if they had them they would be much richer. But they can't afford them currently because of the yuan-dollar relation. this just isn't true. what does the dollar have to do with this? why do you believe that they don't have these things when just a few posts earlier you were arguing that they should keep the things that they produce? they are producing plasma tv's and stuffed animals, and there's nothing stopping them from selling them to the chinese people at the same price that they export these products to other countries.
|
lol ok guys he is a troll, he just pmed me confirming that "100% unemployment" was not a mistake:
----------------------------------------- Original Message: lol funny guy. Yeah if there really is 100% unemployment there would be no way to know. Haha, so funny.
----------------------------------------- Original Message: uhh, do you still not understand what's going on and why people are laughing at you? YOU were the one who made a mistake and said "100% unemployment is better than 0% unemployment" in YOUR OWN POST.
----------------------------------------- It's not a mistake. You don't understand basic economics. Employment is irrelevant in itself. You employ people to generate wealth.
|
Lol I PM not to post here and not to have to be called a troll.
If low unemployment is so good in itself then let's employ everyone that's unemployed to carry water to the sea. Instant 0% unemployment.
Say you are in charge in a nation where everyone is employed in carrying water to the sea. How do I ever convince you to make everyone unemployed so we can free up manpower to create capital?
|
On January 09 2010 13:16 Glaucus wrote: Lol I PM not to post here and not to have to be called a troll.
If low unemployment is so good in itself then let's employ everyone that's unemployed to carry water to the sea. Instant 0% unemployment.
Who's paying...?
The government? Where does the government get money? Print them? Instant inflation...
|
On January 09 2010 13:16 Glaucus wrote: Lol I PM not to post here and not to have to be called a troll.
If low unemployment is so good in itself then let's employ everyone that's unemployed to carry water to the sea. Instant 0% unemployment.
Say you are in charge in a nation where everyone is employed in carrying water to the sea. How do I ever convince you to make everyone unemployed so we can free up manpower to create capital?
what does this even mean and have to do with that disaster that you stated earlier? you said that it's better for nobody to have a job rather than everybody having a job. 100% unemployment = everybody is jobless. no jobs = bad. do you get it now???
lol why am i even trying just read a textbook, im not wasting time here anymore
|
Yes, all else being equal. Like in that example.
You really think carrying water to the sea creates capital? Didn't you read my posts? Or are you just trolling?
|
On January 09 2010 13:24 Glaucus wrote: Yes, all else being equal. Like in that example.
You really think carrying water to the sea creates capital? Didn't you read my posts? Or are you just trolling? these reductionist arguments do nothing to help your argument. all things equal, 0% employment is pretty fucking bad too. when we are talking about a real world issue, what is the point in having an argument that boils down to semantics?
|
Don't ask me. I didn't go down this path. Somewhere along the line I just had to explain employment has no merit on it's own because there was some confusion about that. But the examples confused people and people read only half a sentence, post private messages, insult me and then when they see they made a mistake just 'call it quits'. Because he obviously never read 'all else being equal' part and thinks zero employment=zero capital.
Like I said, I gave up. Seems people that read blogs are really different from those in other parts of the forum. I am sick of all this 4chan/troll stuff.
|
On January 09 2010 13:33 Glaucus wrote: Don't ask me. I didn't go down this path. Somewhere along the line I just had to explain employment has no merit on it's own because there was some confusion about that. But the examples confused people and people read only half a sentence, post private messages, insult me and then when they see they made a mistake just 'call it quits'. Because he obviously never read 'all else being equal' part and thinks zero unemployment=zero capital.
Like I said, I gave up. Seems people that read blogs are really different from those in other parts of the forum.
All else being equal today, now we suddenly suspend all employment, companies no longer make any money or produces any goods because no one is working.
Since companies make no money, they cannot afford to pay their employees.
Employees no longer receive any money, two cases: 1) employees run out of money, cannot afford to consume 2) goods run out, because no one is producing
I don't understand how this is better than status quo?
|
Oh god. We all got trolled so hard
|
i took some time to reread his posts and PM with him and i don't think he's trolling anymore. i just think he did a really terrible job at explaining his position and shot himself in the foot really early on in the argument with shit like this:
Ok. Let's make half of China unemployed and let's not export stuff. Now what? Now Chinese work less hard and have more wealth to consume as wealth isn't exported. How is this bad? Wouldn't it have been easier to say "let's make half of China work half as much and not export stuff"? at least that would have sidestepped that whole unemployment clusterfuck that didn't really have to do with anything at all.
I'm not saying that I agree with everything he says, but his basic position is something that most people can agree upon: china's government is keeping the yuan-dollar exchange rate artificially low which diminishes the relative wealth of the chinese population.
|
On January 09 2010 14:00 skronch wrote:i took some time to reread his posts and PM with him and i don't think he's trolling anymore. i just think he did a really terrible job at explaining his position and shot himself in the foot really early on in the argument with shit like this: Show nested quote +Ok. Let's make half of China unemployed and let's not export stuff. Now what? Now Chinese work less hard and have more wealth to consume as wealth isn't exported. How is this bad? Wouldn't it have been easier to say "let's make half of China work half as much and not export stuff"? at least that would have sidestepped that whole unemployment clusterfuck that didn't really have to do with anything at all. I'm not saying that I agree with everything he says, but his basic position is something that most people can agree upon: china's government is keeping the yuan-dollar exchange rate artificially low which diminishes the relative wealth of the chinese population.
This is because China is sacrificing national welfare for a boost in national output. This is a whole other topic that's up to debate.
This thread reminds me of this:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=79544¤tpage=33
|
China don't need to rely on exports. Indeed our economy is shaped in such way but when you have 1.2 billion people, you should have enough market to satisfy your own enterprises.
Export oriented Chinese economy will see some big changes in the next few years.
|
The few last decades have seen a surge in both the purchasing power of chinese people and the know-how of chinese companies for making technologically advanced products. China is switching from being the worlds workshop to producing higher-value products and relying on its own (huge) internal market.
We might not see as many "made in china" products in the future as we do now (or rather it won't be the same range of products). Actually companies have been looking for some years now for other places to plant their low-skilled factories in, but it's not that easy to find a place that fills all the prerequisites.
|
We've seen a lot of growth in urban parts of China, areas are so densely populated. Unfortunately theres still a large fraction of rural PRC that hasnt seen any significant growth or progress. Fact is corporations and government can easily exploit this group, and the people will not have any say. Since there is barely any political freedom in China, sacrificing human rights for development and economic power... No problem!
edit: Probably be closed sooner or later because of its low rating and flame wars. Oh well.
|
On January 09 2010 14:36 haduken wrote: China don't need to rely on exports. Indeed our economy is shaped in such way but when you have 1.2 billion people, you should have enough market to satisfy your own enterprises.
Export oriented Chinese economy will see some big changes in the next few years.
We would have such a huge surplus in consumer products and it will take a long time for the global economy to adapt to it.
|
Baltimore, USA22251 Posts
Fucking christ. You idiots with the "Glaucus is clearly trolling.", "clearly completely ignorant or an awful troll", "Did I read this correctly, or did I get trolled? HARD?", and posting PM conversations just to berate the guy even further derailed this thread harder than the things he wrote did.
Every single one of you should be apologizing to Disregard for fucking up his thread.
|
Sorry Disregard. for derailing your thread
|
On January 09 2010 17:10 EvilTeletubby wrote: Fucking christ. You idiots with the "Glaucus is clearly trolling.", "clearly completely ignorant or an awful troll", "Did I read this correctly, or did I get trolled? HARD?", and posting PM conversations just to berate the guy even further derailed this thread harder than the things he wrote did.
Every single one of you should be apologizing to Disregard for fucking up his thread.
They really should be apologizing to Glaucus though, even if he didn't understand the abcs of economics, he's clearly not trolling. Forum posters posted replys that he obviously was incapable of digesting, then they bashed him further for not understanding whatever poorly constructed explanations they gave. The misunderstood replys and unwarranted bashings generate more curiosities and defenses from Glaucus, creating a vicious cycle.
|
China produces consumer goods and then takes the money from the consumer goods and sells them abroad to gain money which they plow into capital goods in an export-led growth model. If China were to "work half as hard and keep all their stuff" many Chinese would see an immediate rise in living standards but the "Chinese miracle" that is 10% economic growth year after year would slow down substantially. The Chinese are not making shit and then giving it away for free. They are making shit and selling it for cheap in order to maximize their own productive output, and this strategy creates economic growth.
|
Baltimore, USA22251 Posts
On January 09 2010 17:27 GoodWill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 17:10 EvilTeletubby wrote: Fucking christ. You idiots with the "Glaucus is clearly trolling.", "clearly completely ignorant or an awful troll", "Did I read this correctly, or did I get trolled? HARD?", and posting PM conversations just to berate the guy even further derailed this thread harder than the things he wrote did.
Every single one of you should be apologizing to Disregard for fucking up his thread. They really should be apologizing to Glaucus though, even if he didn't understand the abcs of economics, he's clearly not trolling. Forum posters posted replys that he obviously was incapable of digesting, then they bashed him further for not understanding whatever poorly constructed explanations they gave. The misunderstood replys and unwarranted bashings generate more curiosities and defenses from Glaucus, creating a vicious cycle.
True, although I thought Glaucus was egging it on a bit early, he did take the higher road and try to take it to PMs when he saw he wasn't getting through (and then the guy he was PMing had the bad taste to post the convo). Either way, I think everyone involved could have handled it better.
|
Are you kidding me? It's like Glaucus never heard of competition. How can you argue economics without a basic understanding of it?
On January 09 2010 10:47 Glaucus wrote:
How are they making money by keeping prices low? If you get more money for your product that means the price has to be higher. If you keep the price really low you get a really low amount of money. You realize it's the same thing? What use is having a huge 'trade surplus' if that means you export almost everything when you get nothing in return? The point of exporting is so you can import stuff yourself too.
Chinese people work hard and then all the stuff they produce goes to the US and Europe. US pays money but US has huge depth and is never going to replay those depths. So what use is the dollar?
When are the Chinese people going to get some stuff the Americans produced for them?
How does China need other countries to consume their wealth for them to be rich? Doesn't that make China poorer? Imagine if China could keep all the capital they produce.
America produces goods and services. China doesn't produce capital, it produces goods. If you keep prices low, you might not get as much money for each item, but it keeps people coming to your store to buy the shit you made instead of the stuff someone else made. Also, if you sell enough shit, you won't make a huge profit from each item, but added up, those profits add up. How can you earn money with high prices? Other people would see you making money, come into the market with the same kind of good, charging less, and you're fucked. You either leave the market or you have to cut your prices too which eats into your profits or forces you to find some way to lower your costs.
On January 09 2010 12:41 Glaucus wrote: Chinese people want plasma TVs. They want stuffed animals. They want all these things they produce. And if they had them they would be much richer. But they can't afford them currently because of the yuan-dollar relation.
Someone else talked about jobs. People claim that if the west stopped consuming Chinese people would all go unemployed and that would be bad.
People seem to think huge US consumption drives the global economy. The fact is it drags down the global economy. Chinese production, and production from other low wage countries, drive the global economy. But Chinese people aren't benefiting from this. The people in the US and in the west are the ones with all the consumer goods. They are enjoying them and they are to be wealthy. Yet they are dragging down the economy. And how did they pay for them? By loaning money from China...
China pegs the yuan to the dollar to keep its value unnaturally low to promote its exports. American consumption DOES drive the global economy. Without Americans buying Chinese goods, money wouldn't flow into China. But America exports billions of dollars worth of goods and services to China. It's not even close to as much as we receive, which leads to the trade deficit, but it's not nothing. China also has a trade surplus with Europe and Japan.
TAKE A BASIC MACROECONOMICS COURSE! JESUS
Also, not every moron is a troll. Please stop treating them as such.
Free markets and democracies are fundamentally opposed in the pure, theoretical sense. In practice, with regulation and imperfect democracy, the two systems can live in tandem, although it's not a perfect fit and there will always be a class conflict. It's hard to take your support away from a system that gives you items at ridiculously low prices, especially when people are trying to spend as little as possible on non-essentials. But they're able to have their low prices at the cost of no regulations or any kind of quality assurance program like we have in the United States. Ironically, low prices don't come cheap.
|
Consuming capital reduces wealth. How is consumption beneficial to the global economy? If no one consumed anything we would just have to produce a bit more than zero to be infinitely rich.
I think some of you need to take basic economics or unlearn the fallacies you picked up somewhere along the road.
The US buys Chinese goods on credit. Credit that's loaned from China. They borrow money from China to buy their stuff. And the US isn't able to pay those loans back. So yes China is giving stuff for free. Yes, China is maximizing their production and that's something in itself. But all experts I have heard on the issue don't seem to understand why China is doing this.
EmeraldSparks is exactly right about this. But I don't see anyone attack him.
And all this is possible because of artificial low yuan. How is this not creating a bubble? We already know the US will have to stop spending and start saving or they will go into depression. Then China has to reorganize their factories to make stuff aimed at other markets. That's going to have some effect. Roubini is even predicting the next crisis to be in China.
|
No one is attacking EmeraldSparks because he posted relatively recently and what he posted isn't wrong. I already posted about the artificially low yuan. America has already slowed spending and started saving. America is already in a recession. Recession is not the same thing as a depression. China already trades with the 3 largest economic areas in the world: Japan, Europe, United States, and has strong ties to other growing economies.
You can't talk about other people needing to learn basic economics when you say "Consuming capital reduces wealth. How is consumption beneficial to the global economy?"
In economics, capital or capital goods or real capital are factors of production used to create goods or services that are not themselves significantly consumed (though they may depreciate) in the production process.
Consumption DRIVES the global economy. Without consumption, you have a bunch of products sitting in warehouses doing nothing.
Idiot.
|
What do you call it if all supply is satisfied? If we have goods sitting on the shelves and there is no more demand then what's bad about that? Isn't that what you try to achieve by producing in the first place? The more you have to consume the more you have to produce, obviously.
The US isn't slowing down on spending. It is spending more than ever to stimulate the economy. Yes, China is also trading with other countries. US is less relevant and the whole world will decouple and be relieved on US consumption. But the US China relationship is just a good clear example.
You think you can call me an idiot because I typed 'capital' instead of goods. But that means nothing. If you think we get rich by consuming then that's very very odd if you ask me. I don't really care in how many textbooks you claim you can find it.
|
When all supply is satisfied, I call it satiated.
If everyone has goods sitting on the shelves, that means that no one is getting what they need, firms aren't getting money for their products, workers aren't getting paid, people can't afford to buy food, the entire system collapses. What you try to achieve when you produce is goods that can be consumed, from which you earn currency, which can be used to acquire capital, which produces more goods. Throughout this system, you hope to earn profits.
The American CONSUMER is spending less. The American GOVERNMENT is spending more. It's completely different. The United States will probably become less relevant but bar some kind of ridiculous disaster, it will never be irrelevant.
And I think I can call you an idiot because you are an idiot. You have no knowledge about basic economics and you admit it, yet you think you can try to test the knowledge of others. Capital and goods are completely different, as I stated earlier in a post that's also on this page, which happened to be right on top of yours, but you apparently didn't read, to your disadvantage. People don't get rich by consuming. People consume because they have disposal income.
You're a very clueless kid.
|
But goods are on the shelf because there's no one to consume it because demand is satisfied...
Maybe I am a clueless idiot who can't read. At least I am consistent. You chance your position every post it seems.
Anyway, the US government is doing the big spending right now, that's true. But the American people pay for it. The US government can't pay for it because governments don't have money of their own.
You are still dodging the point. How does huge spending benefit the global economy? Why are Us consumers spending less? By your logic we could get out of this recession if the US consumers start to spend more once again? Or aren't they? You can't explain this using your reasoning.
Why keep standards of living in China artificially low? The only reason I can think of is that the Chinese governmental does want to be a large economic power but doesn't want there to form a middle class because democracies only arise once a middle class forms.
I never admitted to having less knowledge of economics than you. Clearly I have more knowledge than you have. You think the Chinese get rich because the US spend their stuff and squander the money China invests in them...
[edit]
You call me an idiot. But in another topic you say that Peter Schiff is a reasonable man. But he happens to say the exact same thing on China as I am. He also doesn't understand why some economics claim the world needs the US to consume our stuff and why China keeps the yuan low so Chinese people can't consume their own goods...
And there Caller, who apparently studies economics, claims you 'completely misunderstand economics'. You won't believe me because I don't claim to be an authority. Maybe you will believe him?
|
Consistency is overrated and is nothing to be proud of, not that I was inconsistent. In the fact of overwhelming evidence, you have to be able to change your views.
I was going to refute all your points with a huge post but it wouldn't help anything. You're just an unintelligent child that happens to have internet access. You need to get off the computer and into a classroom immediately, or at least wikipedia. Any of your questions would be answered by a simple introductory economics course.
"How does huge spending benefit the global economy?"
You obvious have no idea what the word economy even means. Namedropping Peter Schiff and Caller doesn't change the fact that you don't know a thing. I know what caller said and I responded to him. He is an intelligent and respected poster. You are nothing.
|
No need to get angry. I'm just telling you I don't make this stuff up myself. I just listen carefully to well-respected economics.
Just pointing out that Peter Schiff also disagrees with your ideas about consumption which you refuse to provide arguments for because I once typed 'capital' instead of 'wealth'. "I was going to refute until..."-line is really weak.
|
I'm angry? Hm well I suppose I am.
You listen to well-respected economics? Well excuse me. wait a second...are you sure you didn't meant economists?
Your attempt to argue about economics, when you don't know what economics is or what capital is, is really weak, as is your command of the English language.
|
Oh excuse me. I forgot a 't'.
But stop lying. And if you are so angry and you still have something to offer come back when you are cooled down and more reasonable because right now you are just being mean and making this thread as bad as it was.
|
More like when you should come back once you've been smartened up and have become more knowledgeable. You didn't forget a t, you wrote the wrong word. This kind of mistake is typical of an unintelligent person.
|
So if I had a degree in economics and I proofread every message I posted you would agree with me?
In the mean time you should just stop being offensive. It's not helping anyone.
+ Show Spoiler + China's Simple Solution Peter Schiff
As China grapples with the consequences of its devastating earthquake, it has also begun to finally confront the destabilizing forces bubbling up beneath its economic landscape. This week, several key Chinese officials, typically not known for their candor, conspicuously noted the need to both stimulate domestic consumer spending and bring down roaring inflation. While at first blush these two goals might appear mutually exclusive, China's leaders do have a magic bullet that can hit both targets at once.
A stronger currency, commensurate with China's increased economic strength, will both tamp down inflation and allow Chinese consumers to buy more goods and services. However, for reasons not entirely clear to me, or few others for that matter, China's leaders are resisting this simple and beneficial solution.
The Chinese leadership's stated goal in prodding their citizens to spend more is to decrease their economy's dependence on exports. If the Chinese, who currently save 50% of their incomes, saved less, more of their production would be consumed locally. As a result, China would be less vulnerable to economic downturns abroad. Without a vibrant domestic market, over-leveraged Americans will apparently remain China's most important customers.
A strengthened Yuan would lower the real costs of goods for domestic consumers and allow the Chinese themselves to compete more evenly with consumers in other nations to whom they currently send the fruits of their labor. As goods become more affordable in China, the Chinese will naturally consume more. A rising Yuan would therefore kill two birds with one stone: it would reverse recent consumer price increases and it would induce Chinese consumers to buy their own products.
If the Chinese were to follow such a sensible path, the consequences here in America would be immediate and severe. By allowing their currency to appreciate, Chinese monetary authorities would no longer need to buy and remove as many dollars from the open market, producing an immediate reduction in the demand for U.S. Treasuries, mortgage backed securities and other U.S. dollar denominated debt. The result in America would be a simultaneous increase in both consumer prices and interest rates. Such developments would only compound the problems already rippling through our economy.
To spur domestic spending absent such currency rebalancing, Beijing must instead rely on the nominative, simulative effects of inflation. By further expanding their money supply and allowing those increases to be passed on to workers in the form of higher wages, Chinese consumers will have more Yuan to spend and hence will buy more. However, such a policy will only solve one problem by aggravating the other.
Further, by penalizing savers through the erosive effects of inflation, China would discourage savings and jeopardize one of the true sources of its rising living standards. Contrary to the economic hocus pocus propagated on Wall Street, Washington and at American universities; economies grow not as a result of consumer spending, but as a result of savings. Under consumption is the true source of prosperity as it engenders capital formation, which lies at the root of sustainable economic growth.
Here too the implications for Americans are dire. In effect, by only spending half of their incomes and lending much of the rest to us, Americans have merely been enjoying the current consumption that more frugal Chinese consumers have decided to defer. As the Chinese consume more, Americans will simply be forced to consume less.
Low prices and rich consumers are a potent concoction that is sure to soothe China's roaring economy while raising the living standards of its hard working citizens. It's a simple solution that only an economist can miss.
|
Leave glaucus alone.
I mean if he smartened up and actually knew what he was talking about, I'd just be reading a plain and boring economics discussion.
|
Jesus Glaucus almost makes me love China. It means how much he is annoying and ignorant. If you don't understand basic economics just make your own blog and ask people for help.
|
On January 10 2010 02:25 Boblion wrote: Jesus Glaucus almost makes me love China. It means how much he is annoying and ignorant. If you don't understand basic economics just make your own blog and ask people for help.
*It shows that he is very annoying and ignorant.
Or, even though you're not really supposed to end with a preposition,
*It shows how annoying and ignorant he is.
|
On January 10 2010 02:51 ilovezil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2010 02:25 Boblion wrote: Jesus Glaucus almost makes me love China. It means how much he is annoying and ignorant. If you don't understand basic economics just make your own blog and ask people for help.
*It shows that he is very annoying and ignorant. Or, even though you're not really supposed to end with a preposition, *It shows how annoying and ignorant he is. Eh maybe i should make my own blog asking for English help o,o
edit: not my main language x)
|
On January 09 2010 22:48 Glaucus wrote: Consuming capital reduces wealth. How is consumption beneficial to the global economy? If no one consumed anything we would just have to produce a bit more than zero to be infinitely rich. The end purpose of production is consumption. A country where everybody produces a lot and everybody consumes a lot is far richer than a country where everybody consumes very little and produces slightly more than very little.
On January 09 2010 22:48 Glaucus wrote: The US buys Chinese goods on credit. Credit that's loaned from China. They borrow money from China to buy their stuff. And the US isn't able to pay those loans back. So yes China is giving stuff for free. Yes, China is maximizing their production and that's something in itself. But all experts I have heard on the issue don't seem to understand why China is doing this. US Treasury bills are not worthless even if nobody is thinking about paying off the debt anytime soon.
On January 09 2010 22:48 Glaucus wrote: EmeraldSparks is exactly right about this. But I don't see anyone attack him. I'm useful!
On January 09 2010 22:48 Glaucus wrote: And all this is possible because of artificial low yuan. How is this not creating a bubble? We already know the US will have to stop spending and start saving or they will go into depression. Then China has to reorganize their factories to make stuff aimed at other markets. That's going to have some effect. Roubini is even predicting the next crisis to be in China. People have been predicting that China was in a bubble every few years ever since it took off. I recall there was supposed to be a bubble burst in the early part of the decade which people were predicting. Didn't happen. If you're claiming that China's model is unsustainable since the US will stop spending or that it will implode, well, in the event that the US economy does actually implode, they will be in a lot of trouble and will have to retool markets to focus on exports to other nations or the domestic market. But that doesn't mean there will be a devastating crisis; perhaps their growth will simply slow, and that doesn't mean that the current strategy is not a good idea for China at the present.
|
On January 10 2010 02:58 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2010 02:51 ilovezil wrote:On January 10 2010 02:25 Boblion wrote: Jesus Glaucus almost makes me love China. It means how much he is annoying and ignorant. If you don't understand basic economics just make your own blog and ask people for help.
*It shows that he is very annoying and ignorant. Or, even though you're not really supposed to end with a preposition, *It shows how annoying and ignorant he is. Eh maybe i should make my own blog asking for English help o,o
|
On January 09 2010 22:48 Glaucus wrote: Consuming capital reduces wealth. How is consumption beneficial to the global economy? If no one consumed anything, then there would be 0 demand and therefore 0 output as there is no demand to respond to, which would lead to the death of the economy.
|
|
|
|