WHAT IF CHINA SAID NO MORE

[nerve]

Believe it or not the US still has 20% more manufacturing over China. Also, the majority of the manufacturing done in China is owned by US companies. The Chinese goverment basicly gave the green light to US business to use it's population and enviroment at will in exchange for modernity. You can interpolate ther rest...

 

[swbluto]

I think the difference between Mike's number and yours is that yours reflects monetary assets, and Mike's takes into account all tangible assets.

I don't really understand exactly what wikipedia is referring to when it states "monetary assets" (What, physical assets that can be sold for liquid cash?), and its link to assets makes reference to physical commodities, so I'd think it'd be connected to the whole ball of wax. But, I'm not going to concern myself with wikipedia's semantics.

Still, would like a credible source if someone is going to posit an extraordinarily high number like 2 quadrillion. A simple calculation of the value of all the real estate in America, which comprises a large proportion of the 'real tangible wealth', is considerably lower than 2 quadrillion by several orders of magnitude. Does make me wonder where all that extra wealth would be hiding...

Number of american houses * average real estate value (Let's be generous)

150million*250,000 = 37 trillion

 

[swbluto]

Believe it or not the US still has 20% more manufacturing over China.

Doesn't seem unbelievable.

Also, the majority of the manufacturing done in China is owned by US companies.

Eh, I don't think so. China strictly prohibits US companies from owning property in China, with the exception of Hong Kong. However, the general notion that "we're bringing China's living standards up to Western Standards by the US companies who are profiting off their labor and environment" is roughly true.

Think of the dynamic between Apple and Foxconn.

Apple doesn't own the Foxconn factories (That's owned by some rich Chinese person over there), but they do pay them to make their I-pods,i-phones and computers which they sell to the American public.

Microsoft uses them to make their x-boxes.

Most major computer manufacturers outsource to them.

However, Chinese companies are allowed to buy property in the USA. Does make me wonder if we're more shortsighted than them or what...

(Shortsighted in the sense that they're allowed to own parts of the USA, but the USA is not allowed to own parts of China. You can kind of see where that goes in the long-run as the Chinese slowly buy up American assets...)

 

[Chalo]

Still, would like a credible source if someone is going to posit an extraordinarily high number like 2 quadrillion.

Yeah, I was surprised at the scale of that number too. Mostly because if I understand correctly, our annual GDP of 14 trillion or so reflects a huge percentage of imaginary economic activity, like lending and financial derivatives. So the "real" economy is much smaller and that makes 2000 trillion in assets a very large multiple of the "real" GDP. It does make me wonder about its basis.

Another good mental exercise for putting the scale of the debt in perspective is to compare against GDP instead of assets. $16 trillion is just the government part of the debt; when you include private debt of Americans, it's about 3.5 times the size of our GDP. That's kind of a lot, but normal by middle-class household standards. That's like having a $50,000 household income and $175,000 in outstanding loans that get racked up a little faster than they get paid down.

 

[HAROX]

2. Our national debt is about 16 trillion dollars.

4. So, with that in mind, our national debt is equivalent to $16 and we have $2000 in assets.
And in terms of spending, we need to invest in our own nation and not spend so much on destroying others.

Yeah, just leave it to the powers that be, to take the $16 debt Fairbanks calls it, against the $2000 value thereby, and somehow, let the debt accrue enough extra obesity the next fifty years to be worth $1600, against a $2000? value?

Somehow the gubmint always finds every way to spend up the whole payback scheme, before the money has even gotten into the checkbook.

 

[Secret1511]

Don't worry!!!! If china doesn't do it we will use india and so on!
We only use them for low labour costs. We have seen it here in Europe. We used Polen now we use China.
And Polen has a good economy now thanks to they low labour costs. The only danger is knowlegde. Knowlegde is power.
China is far behind but it is the law of the breaking lead. They will overtake, but for now. Don't worry and order as much lipos if you can !!!

 

[Secret1511]

Ps the USA is fake printing money is something else as making money!!

 

[swbluto]

Still, would like a credible source if someone is going to posit an extraordinarily high number like 2 quadrillion.

Yeah, I was surprised at the scale of that number too. Mostly because if I understand correctly, our annual GDP of 14 trillion or so reflects a huge percentage of imaginary economic activity, like lending and financial derivatives.

The official GDP numbers tally up the "final end products" of an economy, and ignores 'paper transactions' like the stock market and debt. In a sense, the GDP counts the real stuff and tries to count each end product once.

Anyway, debt wouldn't even change the GDP, because the money lost when someone pays interest is interest earned to the lender.

However, it's not "completely real", because lending does gradually increase the money supply as lending creates money out of thin air, so as money is loaned and used to purchase physical assets, the GDP increases reflecting the increase in the money supply. Printing money directly, like with the QE, also increases the money supply. That's when you do "real GDP" calculations, to figure out what the GDP really is (To make the GDP from one year to another year comparable), after taking into account the expansion of the money supply.

This is how you figure out how much the "GDP growth" of the USA is BS. You know the headlines, "The gdp increased 2% this year" or some variation thereof over the last 4 years, in declaring the economy has 'recovered' while employment figures remain lackluster. Hah, don't let it deceive you.

However, there are signs that economy activity is increasing in the last year or so, which would reflect in the 'real gdp'. Because, yeah, the 'real gdp' is essentially when people are actually doing something real and the real GDP is fundamentally linked to people making real products and exchanging them with others (I.e., like building houses.). Services are a bit murkier in their 'realness' and included in the GDP calcs.

I suppose if you wanted to find out the size of the 'real economy' san services, you could do something like (non-service% of the economy)*GDP (As services are essentially a redistribution of the wealth in the economy, and don't necessarily create anything 'real' with lasting value... though you do wonder...hmmm....yeah, doesn't seem that simple, but it's a good general guideline, methinks.). That'd suggest the "real" part of the economy of the USA is somewhere around 5 trillion/year, compared to China's 8 trillion GDP. Don't know how much of the Chinese economy is in services and in real product creation, so I can't compare that directly.

 

[swbluto]

In the long run we have to worry about the folks who benefit from the trade and debt imbalances using their gains to buy up our assets. Because to return to Mike's analogy, owing some money to a neighbor is a less precarious situation than owing some money to a neighbor who is your landlord.

Indeed, it's a shame to think of the longterm implications of the Chinese buying up American assets while Americans can't buy Chinese assets. It'd be OK if it was a two-way street as there'd be balance, but it's not.

I'm assuming that in the case of war with China, America has the ability to nationalize Chinese owned assets (The Chinese seem to have no problem with nationalizing industries). Otherwise, as long as we're at peace with them, the USA doesn't really care who the money is coming from as long as it's coming from someone. However, the thought of them being peaceful and reaping most of the profits in America seems absurd; you wouldn't think the elite in the USA would allow for that scenario. Indeed, maybe that's why all the 'major purchases' from the Chinese go through some regulatory committee of sorts, to prevent them from taking too much control of the USA's important and most profitable industries.

 

[muffinman]

i start to feel dumb when people bring up global economics. my brain just repeats "and THAT is why i want to go off the grid."

 

[Dauntless]

I think the difference between Mike's number and yours is that yours reflects monetary assets, and Mike's takes into account all tangible assets.

I think you guys are worrying a little too hard about whether or not you have the REAL story. There's no way of knowing.

Believe it or not the US still has 20% more manufacturing over China.

Doesn't seem unbelievable.

Also, the majority of the manufacturing done in China is owned by US companies.

Eh, I don't think so. China strictly prohibits US companies from owning property in China, with the exception of Hong Kong.

No no, all he said was "The manufacturing done in China. . . ." Not just the rights and patents, but even the tooling. The U.S. companies doing the work there own the manufacturing itself even if they don't own the buildings. And it's THEIR OWN TOOLING these companies use to produce knockoffs of their product.

The Japanese bought up American assets at higher prices than they sold them at later. Lost hundreds of millions at a time on a number of buildings, at least one Hollywood studio, etc. I wonder how this will turn out for China.

i start to feel dumb when people bring up global economics. my brain just repeats "and THAT is why i want to go off the grid."

Are you kidding? I see the big boys all saying that, too.

Crow Eateeeeeeeen.

Well, it's about time. Does your mother make you stay at the table until you're done.

If it was this easy for everyone else, they wouldn't all have you blocked. I'm sure they had tons of fun just now.

 

[swbluto]

I think the difference between Mike's number and yours is that yours reflects monetary assets, and Mike's takes into account all tangible assets.

I think you guys are worrying a little too hard about whether or not you have the REAL story. There's no way of knowing.

Believe it or not the US still has 20% more manufacturing over China.

Doesn't seem unbelievable.

Also, the majority of the manufacturing done in China is owned by US companies.

Eh, I don't think so. China strictly prohibits US companies from owning property in China, with the exception of Hong Kong.

No no, all he said was "The manufacturing done in China. . . ." Not just the rights and patents, but even the tooling. The U.S. companies doing the work there own the manufacturing itself even if they don't own the buildings. And it's THEIR OWN TOOLING these companies use to produce knockoffs of their product.

Let's make this simple.

Americans don't own:

The chinese employees (They don't employ them directly under their own company).
The buildings or property.
The chinese companies they outsource to, which own the property and employees.

That's a pretty big amount of ownership they're not allowed to have. Whether they're allowed to own 'the tools' is pretty miniscule in the grand scheme of things. They definitely don't "own the ideas"(In the sense that they're theirs and theirs only), as the Chinese rip those off without thinking twice.

 

[Chalo]

They definitely don't "own the ideas"(In the sense that they're theirs and theirs only), as the Chinese rip those off without thinking twice.

How much did Chinese technologists get paid for gunpowder? Paper? The compass? Typesetting?

I can hardly blame them if they believe that a concept belongs to whomever understands it. Which is sort of what it looks like to me.

 

[Dauntless]

Let's make this simple.

Let's make it even simpler: America OWNS its' manufacturing in China.

The chinese employees (They don't employ them directly under their own company).
The buildings or property.
The chinese companies they outsource to, which own the property and employees.

That's a pretty big amount of liability they're not forced to have.

Whether they're allowed to own 'the location' is pretty miniscule in the grand scheme of things. Look at all the stores downtown in leased locations. This is WHY they go to China. You should read up on that.

Sorry, I keep forgetting you find the truth boring.

They definitely don't "own the ideas"(In the sense that they're theirs and theirs only), as the Chinese rip those off without thinking twice.

So this old guy who keeps getting his bicycles stolen: he definitely doesn't "Own the bicycles?" (In the sense they are his and his only.) You need to figure out that "THEFT" never proves you didn't own something.

. . . . the Chinese rip those off without thinking twice.

How much did Chinese technologists get paid for gunpowder? Paper? The compass? Typesetting?

I can hardly blame them if they believe that a concept belongs to whomever understands it. Which is sort of what it looks like to me.

You left out spaghetti. But since the Chinese also like pizza, meat balls, the propeller, flight, I'd say they came out ahead in the fair use/open source category.

No they don't believe that a concept belongs to whomever understands it. An American company developed "Electric Ink" for the Kindle screen, the Chinese bought out the company. What's yours is theirs, and what's theirs is theirs. Don't try to infringe on the Electric Ink patent now that they own it. It could have been okay before, but not anymore lad, not anymore.

 

[MikeFairbanks]

I wish I could find the source of my earlier numbers. Should have noted it. Oh well. I guess I have more work to do on that.

But I did come across another interesting note that the U.S. owns foreign interests too, so our debt to foreign governments isn't as bad as it looks, considering that what they own is debt against us and what we own are tangible assets like real estate and the like.


My bottom line is this: The sky isn't falling for the USA. We are not in any real danger on a global scale. Our economy is really good.

The danger is this: The wealthy aren't satisfied that they "only" have most of the money. They look at a feudal system as ideal, but they don't understand that unhappy workers are not very productive.

In other words, treat your employees right and they will work hard. Americans like to work hard, but we're constantly being bombarded by right wing media that we are lazy, no-good, unappreciative slackers. And we're not.

We Americans work very hard. This isn't in any way meant to disparage other cultures or nations. They live the way they choose, but we Americans are conditioned to wake up early, show up on time, and put in extra hours without necessarily getting extra compensation (salaried positions, of course).

In my line of work, if you ever said "I get paid for an eight-hour day and that's what I'll give," you would be seen as a slacker with a bad attitude. The eight hours is arbitrary (legal stuff, really), and on average I put in about ten hours. Twelve-hour days are not common but not rare either. I put in three or four a month.

On average I work an eight-hour day once a week, sometimes twice. On Fridays I put in eight hours and leave the minute I am allowed. It's Friday and pretty much everyone splits. I'm also in a fortunate position that I can do the same on Mondays, and it's not a bad thing. I get to work at 7:15 and leave at 3:15 on MOndays, then I work about ten hours on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (Thursdays can stretch much longer), and then eight on Friday. By leaving at 3:15 on Friday, my weekend starts early and it feels longer (especially if I do a lot of fun things on Friday afternoon and evening). Then, on Monday, I show up fresh and eager. And if I leave at 3:15, and continue whatever I was doing over the weekend, then it feels like I've had a lot of relaxing time. Tuesday through Thursday are completely consumed with work while I'm awake (I take work home after my ten hours), but three days of really hard work doesn't feel so bad.

My average week is about fifty to fifty-five hours, but the way I organize it doesn't make it feel so long.
-------------------


My point being that as long as the 1% (as they call it, which is more like 10%) of the wealthiest are willing to put out a fair amount to hired workers, then we'll keep showing up on time and putting in the work.


I'm relatively liberal in many ways, but I'm not against rich people or capitalism. It's their time and work, so if they want to get filthy rich it's fine with me. It's good for the economy. The problem I have is with greedy rich people who whine and complain about the middle class and the lower class, believing that they'll get more productivity with a stick than with a carrot.

At the extreme level in American history we had slaves. I find it hard to believe that slaves put in their best effort day after day. I bet they took (rightfully so) every opportunity to go easy (break tools, fake sickness, rest when nobody was looking, etc.). If I were a slave I'd be resentful and do my level best to put in a long, dishonest day of work.

At the other extreme end is getting paid to do nothing (perhaps some aspects of welfare can be included). It would be foolish to think, "I want to get paid, have health benefits, and a building retirement account, but not work a single hour for anyone else."


So, finding a fair balance is what makes the economy strong, in my opinion. Pay your workers well, give them the benefits that they really need (healthcare and retirement accounts), and remember that your workers are human beings with human emotion, and should be treated kindly. A boss or owner who has genuine concern and compassion for his or her employees will have a successful business.


Finally, an example: When I finished high school I freeloaded for about a year until my parents said, "get a job or go to college." I wasn't mature enough at that point to go back to school so I got a job with Carvin Corporation in California. They are a very successful company that started in about the 1950s, but really came into prominence in the late seventies. They build guitars, amplifiers, and PA systems, all right here in the USA. They are in San Diego, California.

I started working there when I was 18 and quit exactly two years later to attend college. During my two years there I was extremely impressed with the way they treated their employees. We were paid fairly, and raises were frequently given based on how hard we worked and the attitude we brought. There was a meeting once per month (short and sweet) with all 200 employees, and the meetings were positive and employee-focused. Cash awards were given out to a handful of people for innovative ideas. The company also had dollar-for-dollar profit sharing, health benefits, and they were generous in other ways too.

Plus, once a year (and this was really cool) they would throw a huge party with food and drink for the employees and invite all the rock stars that used their equipment, including the guitar player from Rush (Alex Lifeson), the Bangles, Heart, Frank Zappa's band, Jefferson Starship, Steve Vai, and more.

It was a great place to work for, and because of the good attitude of the owners (four brothers and their dad) toward the employees, there was a very strong work culture there. You felt that to work at Carvin was a thrill (which it was), and people who said "I will only put in my eight hours" were rare.


I ramble, but hopefully my point got across.

 

[muffinman]

how much time did you spend on that post, mike? quit slacking and get back to work! (insert whip noises here)
i considered adding a carefully reasoned argument, but humor seemed to fit better. sorry if it annoys anyone.

 

[kriskros]

HOW MUCH WOULD A U.S. MADE 36' colour TV COST ...considering the wage differenco between about $6.00 a day to $20.00+dollars an hour..also add in .. corporate cost such as pensions,medical,insurance,waste management,business taxes ect,ect..in the early 50s[i had a couple of tv stores] an Admiral table model17" B&W tv retailed for $199.00.. that was a very cheap combo tube and solid state chassis in a tin cabinat...in thr mid 60s an Admiral or RCA 21" colour tv table model msrp was about $700.00 ...Philips, magnasonic,ect were higher

 

[MikeFairbanks]

how much time did you spend on that post, mike? quit slacking and get back to work! (insert whip noises here)
i considered adding a carefully reasoned argument, but humor seemed to fit better. sorry if it annoys anyone.

Aint you funny.

I'm not due back to work for about four days, so I get to waste some time online.

 

[swbluto]

Let's make this simple.

Let's make it even simpler: America OWNS its' manufacturing in China.

The chinese employees (They don't employ them directly under their own company).
The buildings or property.
The chinese companies they outsource to, which own the property and employees.

That's a pretty big amount of liability they're not forced to have.

You're missing the bigger picture; they're not allowed to own Chinese assets. Things like mineral rights, oil rights, animal farms, real estate, etc. which are EXACTLY the kind of assets they're buying in the United States. You wonder, "What's so significant about that point"? I'll tell you - it's because there's significant longterm income potential associated with ownership of property/commodities/assets in China. If you own all the real estate in a country, you can rent it out for a tidy profit by extracting a certain percentage of the going income levels in the country (In the USA, that'd be about 50% of the median household income). What if the Chinese owned all the real estate in the United States and people had to rent it to access it, but the USA didn't own any of theirs? Can you see how this dynamic is unbalanced?

Property, including land, comprises over 80% of the national wealth of the United States - even things like the service economy are paid for mostly by things associated directly with property (Think oil, wood, metals, plastic, housing, real estate, farm land, land, etc. - Just about every 'real' good is made using those assets somewhere along the supply chain). That makes questions of international ownership rights pretty significant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[whilechukwuzout]

to teach the decadent western capitalists a lesson...or some other such propaganda type excuse....no more TVs,no more washing machines,no more batteries,ect,ect,,,not a liely scenario,but possible?.. at one time the U.S. was the worlds greatest manufacturer..NOT NOW where are the factories?? and,most importantly,where are the TRAINED ple to man them? China,and several third world counties could put north america in real bind if we were cut off by any of them... we make lots of hamburgers and pizzas, but what else

We would stumble. Then India would step up to the plate, and it would be like China never happened.

 

[MikeFairbanks]

^^^

That pretty much sums it up. And if not India, then someone else.


In a way this whole thing is a win-win situation for China and the USA. We get cheaper shovels, rakes, coffee cups and American flags, and they get a higher standard of living by making those things.

Only the ground, air and water suffer as a result. We can probably do without those.

 

[swbluto]

^^^

That pretty much sums it up. And if not India, then someone else.

There's only so many third-world people in this world.

China and India comprise over 80% of the 'civilized' third world. Getting Africa to be productive is like getting a welfare rat to work.

 

[kriskros]

^^^

That pretty much sums it up. And if not India, then someone else.


In a way this whole thing is a win-win situation for China and the USA. We get cheaper shovels, rakes, coffee cups and American flags, and they get a higher standard of living by making those things.

Only the ground, air and water suffer as a result. We can probably do without those.

HOW ABOUT THE NORTH AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING?: We,the U.S. and Canada lose millions of jobs...factory jobs, yes, but not everytbody is a college graduate...those are the "blue collar" workers...the backbone of the country... the machinie operators. the line opeators, the assemblers..the "mall" customers...the tax payers that support the government at all levels.. they become liabilities[welfare collectors] instead of assets... from reports i have heard ,a number os U.S. cities are in iminent danger going bankrupt.Detroit was once a MAJOR industrial center..it ha lost almost half of its population [the tax base] over the the last 10 or 15 years..the "blue collar" workers are the single most imprtant factor in any contrys economy.China knows that.. have we forgotten

 

[Chalo]

China and India comprise over 80% of the 'civilized' third world. Getting Africa to be productive is like getting a welfare rat to work.

Give it a fracking rest already.

My sister-in-law, a rich blonde white woman in your own pattern of Aryan awesomeness, recently got a DNA analysis from her husband as a birthday present. She's full of relatively recent African and Middle Eastern genetic haplotypes. That means my own wife, who's white and "Jewy" but not verifiably Jewish, may be as African as I am, and my dad is from the Caribbean. (A moot point since we're all as African as Adam and Eve.)

 

[swbluto]

China and India comprise over 80% of the 'civilized' third world. Getting Africa to be productive is like getting a welfare rat to work.

Give it a fracking rest already.

My sister-in-law, a rich blonde white woman in your own pattern of Aryan awesomeness, recently got a DNA analysis from her husband as a birthday present. She's full of relatively recent African and Middle Eastern genetic haplotypes. That means my own wife, who's white and "Jewy" but not verifiably Jewish, may be as African as I am, and my dad is from the Caribbean. (A moot point since we're all as African as Adam and Eve.)

I noticed China is trying to give it a go, presumably for the long-term solar and oil/coal interests in the continent. Maybe they'll have better luck than the Europeans.

My sister-in-law, a rich blonde white woman in your own pattern of Aryan awesomeness, recently got a DNA analysis from her husband as a birthday present. She's full of relatively recent African and Middle Eastern genetic haplotypes. That means my own wife, who's white and "Jewy" but not verifiably Jewish, may be as African as I am, and my dad is from the Caribbean. (A moot point since we're all as African as Adam and Eve.)

Yada, yada. Dude, most of the people of Africa are separated by at least 50,000 years of evolution, of which 'technology', civilization/domestication and literacy has comprised at least 6000 years, which itself has been a far more intense evolutionary pressure than the evolutionary pressures of the preceding 100,000 years. There are more differences than skin-color; skin-color is merely the tip of the iceberg.

And your aryan accusations are highly misplaced. Jewish ancestry is one of the top dogs evolutionarily speaking as well as chinese/japanese/asian descent, if one were to measure evolutionary success by resource acquiration potential (As manifesting as income/wealth levels in the USA among the different ethnic/cultural groups.)

To say that there AREN'T differences between ethnicities is simply asinine ignorance of reality and science, and stemming mostly from highly unscientific "feel good" modern egalitarian dialogue. Sure, it makes for good civil policy, but it's not reality.

Here's an indisputable difference. There's a measurable *significant* difference between the average cranial volume of your average southern African and your typical northern European. You can't tell me that the only difference is skin-color...

Consider the implications when the correlation between IQ and Cranial Volume is something like .4.

White men have an average brain size of about 1441cc estimated by autopsy and endocranial capacity measurements, about 135cc (10%) larger than the 1306cc average of African Black men, i.e. of pure Negroes in their autonomous environments. The average brain size of American Blacks is larger than that of African Blacks, due to the approximately 25% White ancestry of the African American population and to the superior nutrition provided by White largess. American Blacks have an average brain size estimated by autopsy and endocranial capacity measurements of about 1365cc, about 76cc (5.5%) lower than that of American (and European) Whites. (The data is less complete for women, but shows a similar disparity.)

Source: Afterword of Race, Evolution and Behavior (1997), by P. Rushton; page 283, table A1.

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/REB Afterword 1997.pdf

Btw, the current state of interpreting those genetic tests is crude. We can compare gene sequences, but we can't yet map them to cognitive/behavioral phenotypes, so simply having parts of other cultures in the ancient past has little bearing on the current phenotypes, as far as can be predicted/calculated. We might get there eventually (I'll give it 20 years, at which point shortly after, we'll be able to design chimeric creatures from our imagination and give birth to them.), but we're not quite there yet.