'...America is heading for it's biggest financial crisis since the Depression'

10Seven

Intolerant of Intolerance
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
1,412
Food for thought regarding the US and Chinese economies.

***************

HEADLINES

'Our Rising Dollar: Bye-bye American Pie. An anxious world waits amid signs suggesting America is heading for it's biggest financial crisis since the Depression'

Dragonlords: Chinas Role in America's Looming Financial Crash'

NATIONAL MAGAZINE EXCERPT

'The full extent of America's desperate financial circumstances is only just emerging, along with confirmation that China is bankrolling the US to the tune of US$240 million a day. JOHN SCHMID reports.

When an American buys a house, there's a decent chance the Chinese bankrolled a chunk of the mortgage. In fact, the People's Republic of China finances more consumer and government spending than any foreign lender other than Japan. Beijing's central bank, the People's Bank of China buys mortgage-backed bonds from both the US home-lending agencies, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to the tune of US$48.6 million on average every workday. In that way, the central bank lends it’s vast dollar reserves, a by-product of China’s trade surplus with the United States, to main street homeowners. Those funds in turn help sustain the US housing boom and put money into the pockets of American consumers.

“China, in other words, not only provides US consumers with cheap, high-quality goods,’ says Joseph Quinlan, chief market strategist in New York at Bank of America Capitol Management, “it also lends Americans the money to buy the goods”.

China’s financial relationship with the United States goes well beyond consumer loans.

China maintains an even higher credit limit with the federal government. China’s reserve bank buys some US$187 million in US Treasury securities every business day, helping fuel the nation’s record federal deficit – which in turn pays for it’s military expansion, it’s welfare programs and the economic recovery.

“We are beholden to them by our Treasuries,” says former US Trade Representative Carla Hills. “That worries me”.

It also should worry those who want Washington to clamp down on what they see as China’s unfair trade practices, Quinlan and other analysts concur. That’s because the United States, as the world’s largest debtor nation, cannot afford to cut off a key source of foreign capitol, they say. And apart from America’s financial debt to China, political and national security reasons restrain the political establishment from imposing any meaningful tariffs, quotas or duties on the Middle Kingdom.

…

And as freighter loads of washing machines, DVD players and running shoes pour onto US shores, all with everyday low prices, they continue to depress prices across the economy. That deflation adds to the cost pressure on American producers, who – as a group – have cut factory jobs for 40 consecutive months.

…

A blue-chip roster of US based multinational corporations forms the main line of resistance, pressuring lawmakers to widen trade ties, not constrict them. According to the Chinese government, 400 of America’s Fortune 500 companies do business in China. Most of them boast lucrative profits.

“The Chinese spend no money lobbying,“ Says James Sasser, a former US senator from Tennessee, who served as embassador to China from 1995-99. “Their lobbying is really done by the American business community in Washington. And they don’t want legislation that will adversely affect business ties”.

…

“Every president since Nixon, after a year or two of turbulent relations with China, always reverts back to a relationship of mutual tolerance, “ Sasser says.

Bill Clinton initially refused to cuddle the “Butchers of Beijing”, which is how rights activisists labelled Deng Xiaoping and his deputies after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. But Clinton reverted to a “strategic partnership” with the mainland and even cleared the way for it’s entry into the World Trade Organization…

Then George W. Bush ran for office, calling China a “strategic competitor”, twisting Clinton’s phrase into more of a snarl at what his advisors identified as an emerging rival superpower.

Less then three months later, after Bush took office, a Chinese fighter jet collided in an air duel with a US Navy spy plane as it flew along the southern coast of China. The Chinese pilot died and the government held the American crew after an emergency landing on the Chinese island of Hainan.

The precarious incident was a foreign policy turning point for Bush. The Chinese demanded a formal apology for it’s pilot’s death and held the American crew for 11 says…

It was Bush who blinked first. The State Department issued a carefully written apology with the words “sorry” and “regret”. Then, a few days later, the American ambassador followed up with a written declaration of “sincere regret”.

These days, Bush treats Chinese disputes gingerly, although his cabinet issues tough sounding rebukes to the Chinese for keeping their exchange rate pegged at a level that boosts exports.

His administration, in November, used velvet gloves to apple “sanctions” on Chinese textiles – even though it announced them with blustery language… and the measures only apply to specific import niches.

Lawmakers seem relieved to settle for a symbolic gesture – like China’s just announced $6 billion spending spree on American cars and aircraft. The figure made a bold headline in the government controlled China Daily.

But the amount won’t prevent another record US-China trade deficit. The bilateral trade gap, which will widen to at least $125 billion in 2003 from $103 in 2002, is the widest between any two nations in history.

…

For all it’s fragilities, nothing yet has slowed this fire-breathing dragon – not the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98; nor the internet and technology crash; not synchronous global recession of 2001; and not last years outbreak of [SARs].

Nor can the USA afford to have China slow down. Throughout the past downturn, which has ravaged the global economy, China has been the one major nation with stable growth.

…

“While it’s not presently in China’s interest to use it’s very large dollar reserves as an economic weapon against the US, this possibility exists,” the US-China Review Commission report warns.

“The US has the best recovery that money can buy,” says the outgoing chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Kenneth Rogoff, when he retired in September. “It’s borrowing a great deal in order to sustain this very high recover”.

NATIONAL NEWSPAPER EXCERPT

“We have not come all this way – through tragedy and trail and war – only to falter and leave our work unfinished”

President Bush sets out the themes of his re-election campaign in his State of the Union address, in which [he says that America is strengthening it’s economy] and successfully combating terrorism.

***************

I had wondered, previous to reading these articles, whether the Bush government might be steering the USA toward a financial crisis – with it’s eyes more open than might first appear. Regardless of the fact, crisis does appear to be on the cards, as successive governments, and, increasingly, the current one, deliver the US economy into the control and dubious care of a foreign nation. But, perhaps I am being naïve – and such a situation has existed, to a certain extent, for decades – with dependence simply varying – or Bush intends to declare war ;) against China, and reshuffle the monetary accounts resulting…

EDIT - Added [ and ] to highlight Bush quote from newspaper.
 
crap

between this, the Pentagon's Report on evironmental catastophie, Peak Oil, and and the CIA's report that Al Quaeda has expanded into many other shadowy new groups,....

things don't look so good.
 
How would a bankrupt military superpower react to a new emerging economic superpower when it starts applying pressure on it?
 
I'm thinking it would be 'kick-arse' time. But there is the niggling fact of the US military strength being of a very high monetary cost. As it currently stands, nuclear weapons aside, China would probably give the military a real run for it's money.

By the time the economy deteriated to such an extent - if it does - and that such things were considered - China's military, being as it is currently being upgraded at a high rate, I don't think it would be so clear cut.

Global Warming :) remember that nobody really knows what will happen - all the different theories that are actually based on logic and simulation add fuel to the denialist fire. Simply put though, it must be fair to say that things will not be the same :king:
 
Originally posted by Laughing Gull
between this, the Pentagon's Report on evironmental catastophie, Peak Oil, and and the CIA's report that Al Quaeda has expanded into many other shadowy new groups,....
It has been said that every generation believes that mankind is closer to catastrophe than it ever has been in the past.

Of course, every generation is right. As we build our civilization to higher and higher levels, each person becomes more and more dependant on the society for the very means of survival. And as the pillar of society gets higher, not only does it get more unstable, everyone has farther to fall....

The future is never certain, and the end is always near. That said, we've won more rounds than we've lost. Keep your chin up. ;)
 
Originally posted by Dumb pothead
How would a bankrupt military superpower react to a new emerging economic superpower when it starts applying pressure on it?

Bullying security over natural ressourses:mischief:
 
Enjoy these last golden years of civilsation!

The Mad Max world beckons!

I relish that scenario! :D
 
Originally posted by Laughing Gull
crap

between this, the Pentagon's Report on evironmental catastophie, Peak Oil, and and the CIA's report that Al Quaeda has expanded into many other shadowy new groups,....

things don't look so good.

Ironic, I just listened to Hail to the Thief for the first time in a while today, and (as intended and as always) the first two songs gave me that creepy "the world is going to hell and there's nothing you can do" feeling.
 
So centuries after the economic collapse, global warming and the nuclear holocaust, our primitive, semi barbarous descendants all over the world will start trying to build skyscrapers again in an attempt to recall the half remembered, mythical golden age of humanity. Then 5000 years after that, people will scoff at the notion that there was a prior civilisation (ours).

(shamelessly plugging my Giza thread)
 
There is a master plan. This is only another step towards the global elite's final goal.

Maybe we'll get lucky and a nuclear war will avert it! ;)
 
China buys US securities and financial insturments and in general intervenes in currency markets on a massive scale to keep the Yaun at an artificially low level against the dollar which helps them export more goods to the US. When they convert their Yaun into dollars to buy $ demoninated US financial insturments this affects supply and demand in world currency markets in a way that is advantageous to their exporters. It is nothing much to worry about, it also lowers the price of credit in the US allowing people and companies to borrow at a lower rate. Whoever wrote this story doesn't know crap about economics. The US economy will be booming again soon. We saw the same fear mongering in the early '90s just before the greatest era of prosperity our nation had ever seen.
 
Originally posted by 10Seven
I'm thinking it would be 'kick-arse' time. But there is the niggling fact of the US military strength being of a very high monetary cost. As it currently stands, nuclear weapons aside, China would probably give the military a real run for it's money.

Very true. I've heard guys on radio talk shows saying the same thing, that teh economy is gonna hit an all new low, and that these suggestions that it's recovering is just our successful attempt to stave it off for a few more years. Meanwhile China is ready to rock and they're saying that within 15-20 year, we might see the ultimate showdown for who will ultimately rule the planet, either directly or indirectly, the U.S. or China.

Kind of ineresting, sor tof a final showdown of Good Vs. Evil. Human rights and fre speech vs. Fascism and oppression. Of course i'm sure plenty of you will insist the United States is the true evil and all that nonsense, but whatever :rolleyes:

As for the Mad Max scenario, i guess that too is very possible, and very scary :eek: I also think there's some merit to the idea civilization may have been wiped out before and a lot of thing sare older than we think. We may end up wiping ourselves out and having the shattered survivors start over, forgetting our once glorious species' civilzations and technology.
 
This is starting to sound a lot like the Fall of Rome. I wonder if the Canadians and Mexicans will invade and sack Washington D.C. :D
 
Drewcifer said,
"It is nothing much to worry about, it also lowers the price of credit in the US allowing people and companies to borrow at a lower rate. Whoever wrote this story doesn't know crap about economics. The US economy will be booming again soon. We saw the same fear mongering in the early '90s just before the greatest era of prosperity our nation had ever seen."

The point is that current growth is as a result of, in reality, China lending huge sums of money to the US government, and independant citizens.

When in financial strife, further borrowing is something of a gamble. If it succeeds, then prosperity, and many decades of paying back will follow. And when it doesn't you see situations like the Depression.

Either way, it IS the simply equation of power, and to whom you are beholden. Cheap interest? Great. And who do you owe it to? Money is a simplistic, though accurate expression of power - how much you have versus how much you owe. That's the economics of power.

Certainly, it seems a big gamble to me, and one, I would suspect, largely based on Bush's desire to be re-elected.

John Weaver, a political consultant who worked for Arizona Senator, John McCain said,
"Voters will undoubtedly give the president high leadership marks when things are going well", says , "but if Iraq isn't going well, and the economy isn't going well, they won't view him as a leader"

CaptainCommando said,
"Kind of ineresting, sor tof a final showdown of Good Vs. Evil. Human rights and fre speech vs. Fascism and oppression. Of course i'm sure plenty of you will insist the United States is the true evil and all that nonsense, but whatever "

Eh, is this a dig at me - assuming I am anti-USA? Assuming I hadn't heard of Tiananmen Square?
 
Woah!!! Ok, let me see if i understand. the Chinese are somehow buying US Treasuries to keep the States in the black, yet at the same time deeply imbedded with the US mortgage thingie. I am never gonna try to become a financial planner, all that I know is that the Chinese seem to be smart enough to be exploiting some flaw or something in the US Financial system. Well, good for the Chinese. this is international diplomacy, once described, rather bluntly, as "nations screwing other nations".

And no, Dr. Yoshi, the Canadian will not be doing any invading. our military is so crappy, our Helicopters fall our of the sky, we have ex-German WW2 Tanks, and we cannot keep a 2,000 man precense in Afghanistan. We have a CRAPPY military. Meh, we have the States as bodyguards, why do we need a military?
 
Are you sure this is not one of the buy outs so that America stay on China's side over Taiwan ?

China has "a vast dollar reserve", are you kiddinig me? Nothing could be further from the truth. They don't have enough for demestic needs let alone sends it abroad. If anyone should be worried about this "lending money to America" issue is the Chinese themselves.
 
Originally posted by 10Seven
I'm thinking it would be 'kick-arse' time. But there is the niggling fact of the US military strength being of a very high monetary cost. As it currently stands, nuclear weapons aside, China would probably give the military a real run for it's money.

By the time the economy deteriated to such an extent - if it does - and that such things were considered - China's military, being as it is currently being upgraded at a high rate, I don't think it would be so clear cut.

Global Warming :) remember that nobody really knows what will happen - all the different theories that are actually based on logic and simulation add fuel to the denialist fire. Simply put though, it must be fair to say that things will not be the same :king:

http://taiwansecurity.org/IS/IS-012000-Nolt.htm

Take a read, it's lengthy. It would be very clear cut.
 
Originally posted by CaptainCommando
Very true. I've heard guys on radio talk shows saying the same thing, that teh economy is gonna hit an all new low, and that these suggestions that it's recovering is just our successful attempt to stave it off for a few more years.

The thing is people said the same thing in the late 1970's during stagflation period(much much worse than the recent recession), that the US's power had peaked, the world belonged to the Japanese and the Soviets, ect. Of course a couple years later the US went though a large period of economic growth in the 1980's. This same scenerio played out in the early 1990's as well.

And even if the US did somehow sink into a great depression level slump, and China began to assert more military power abroad - well look what happend last time that happened. I'm sure any German or Japanese person could tell you. ;)
 
JAPAN/80s

Good point... But what of the issue as to differences between China and Japan - I'm thinking, particularly, of the difference in scope for economic expansion...

VAST MONETARY RESERVES
This isn't far out if you consider China's export versus import ;) China could also be borrowing from someone else, with such a good credit rating - that being better, in real terms, that the USA.

CHINA'S MILITARY STRENGTH
Or, lack thereof.

Interesting article, certainly some good points, but, though I didn't read comprehensively, I feel they missed a few valid points.

Numerical superiority doesn't appear to be addressed - though, admitedly, superior technology counter-acts this, it is not a complete panacea, and where numericacy increasingly exceeds the opponent, technology's value declines. Consider, for instance, Napoleon versus Tsarist Russia or Nazi Germany versus Soviet Russia.

Were China on the defence, versus offense, the issues change considerably - I think it would be a hard argument, for instance, to assert the likelyhood of a US victory, through invasion, or similar, against China.

There is also the seeming 'stretch' that affects the US military in it's current deployment to Iraq - where opposition is probably in many orders of magnitude less than that which would be posed by China...

The biggest issue, to my mind, is that of economics.
The article, to my understanding, devalues the affect of the Chinese economy, and mis-represents it's affects on the military. In considering the affects of this changing economy on the military establishment, it does not consider that establishment, and the old economic style's relationship, and that changing in relation to China's increasing technological ability. That is, while previously there was a dependance, and need, for this material priority, that becomes less vital with an increasingly technological force.

China is embarked on a massive program of development, that is easily seen in it's 'export' of students, and their import of teachers - Them: "do you have study? You can have job. We pay 2x - 10x times as much as anyone. Me: Wooo!

;) Civ is probably a good analogy. I tend to be quite conservative, working toward technology and economic basics - this sees me getting pushed around for much of the game, but, later, able to dominate civs many times my size - and therein China has no equal. Another thing that I do is tend to skimp on the military, preferring to invest latter, where I have that technological advantage - an advantage China would appear to have a more than equal chance of attaining, in consideration of it's population, relatively untapped resources, and investments into education.

I don't think that the view, as to China's 'theme', or 'aggresion' for lack of better words :( goes too far against historical, and quite contemporary evidence.

In the short term, I think that article is spot on - but beyond the next decade, the situation is likely to be very different.

Thanks for posting the article - it has some good point I need some more time to consider...
 
Back
Top Bottom