China's nationalism mutating into aggression

[Creed of Heresy]

Ok, now, here's why I am saying I don't buy into the idea that China's economy is going to overtake the US's.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100849458

Many of those projects were built with the sole purpose of showing strong economic growth and not to generate economic rent, Smead said.

Gordon Chang, author of "The Coming Collapse of China," said China may only be growing 2 or 3 percent and if you strip out all the construction going into ghost cities and "high-speed rail lines to nowhere," the economy may not be growing at all.

He looks at electricity usage as a better indicator of growth than the official Chinese statistics.

"China claimed 7.7 percent growth for the first quarter," he told CNBC this month. "But when you look at electricity, by far the most reliable economic indicator of Chinese economic activity, that grew 2.9 percent in Q1. When you consider that the growth of GDP is historically 85 percent of the growth of electricity, you're talking 2.5 percent (growth)."

And many of those loans used to finance the construction of those ghost cities and idle train lines may never get repaid. Instead, banks continue to roll over these loans—many made to state-owned companies.

...

David Riedel of Riedel Research Group, told CNBC that while investors need to "worry about the health of the banking sector," the Chinese government's 20 percent reserve requirement for the banks and $3 trillion of foreign exchange reserves are "two strong pillars of support."

But using the foreign exchange reserves to recapitalize the banks could have nasty unintended consequences. Smead said they'd have to convert their U.S. Treasury holdings to yuan and "explosively increase the money supply."

That could torpedo the currency and stoke inflation, Smead said, creating a major crisis.

For some international investors, China uncertainty has been reason to avoid the country's equities altogether. Rajiv Jain, manager of the Virtus Foreign Opportunities Fund, told attendees at the Morningstar investment conference earlier in the month that he was "very concerned about the risk coming from China's shadow banking system."

In his first-quarter investment commentary, Jain wrote, "In our view this level of (China) credit growth is unsustainable. There is bound to be a significant contraction in credit and, with it, GDP." He added that the risks are systemic.

...

Smead takes a dimmer view, saying China in 2013 is more like the U.S. in 2007-08 when the global financial crisis hit. While he runs a long-only U.S. fund, China is his chief worry and that has him avoiding U.S. energy, resource and industrial companies that depend on China growth.

"It's probably late 2007-08 in China," Smead said. "It's a physical impossibility for economy to be growing as it is" unless credit continues to expand sharply. Wiki:

He predicts a deep recession or depression that could last four years as it deals with the fallout from the credit binge. Wiki:

Now, I am aware that Gatestone is neocon [seriously, did you and Cratehorus just pull a fucking poison-the-well fallacy on me?? NOT a good way to start a debate, guys!], but if a neocon brings up a good point, I have to concede with it. Slapping a "neocon" label onto something doesn't immediately invalidate it, the point itself has to be faulty. To address the claims of their ownership of land, can I please get an explanation, then, as to why they're encroaching on Indian lands? Far as I can recall, India doesn't hold land that China has in recent history. Technically, there's a bunch of area in the southwestern US that Mexico has claims to from over a century ago, but even though those areas tend to be loaded with republitards I still wouldn't say that they would be justified if they invaded in the name of reclaiming land that they haven't lived in in over a century [well...in a geopolitical sense at any rate]. Saying "they have historical claims to land" doesn't hold any merit when you consider that if we used that justification, there'd be dozens of nations that would be completely justified in suddenly invading their neighbors. Geopolitical borders have shifted hands all over the place over the course of human history for tons of reasons. If you used that justification as a valid excuse then if Finland was invaded by Russia then they'd be totally justified. If China invaded the Korean peninsula [after all they had claim to it...millenia ago] it'd be totally justified. That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard for justification and it gets lamer the more time passes in between the land being lost and being "reclaimed." The world changes very rapidly over the course of a mere decade. I'm not saying that the initial theft of land is justified, but two wrongs don't make a right, especially in a world where conflicts arise over these parcels of land between two or more nuclear-armed nations. That sort of shit doesn't fly.

You also failed to address the fact that China's been openly talking about how they wish to engage the US in open conflict. That's kind of a major thing given the potential for bloodshed if this were to happen. It sounds like you're saying China's just fine, they're a wonderful nation and everything's hunky-dory when, uh, no, no it is not. It is none of those things. Its human-rights abuses are many and constant. The US is far from innocent in that regard [I'm looking at yoooouuuu, Gitmo!], but China's recent list comes up a lot more bloody than the US. I am willing to concede that this might just be nationalism on my part, but I didn't support the war in Iraq. I didn't support the way the war in Afghanistan was waged. I definitely would not have supported the Vietnam war had I been around at the time. I don't agree with military belligerence in general unless there's a damn good reason for it. US involvement in WWII I definitely agree with and in such circumstances I wouldn't hesitate to support our involvement and militarization. We have not attacked China. We haven't ground their economy into the ground. We haven't infringed on their sovereign rights except for a few spy planes that flew over their country when they were weaponizing nuclear materials [one of which was shot down as I recall], and you just try to convince me that China hasn't been infringing on OUR sovereign rights endlessly and blatantly for the last 20 years via the internet, just try to so I can have a huge belly laugh. This sabre-rattling bullshit isn't justified. Now, however, I am willing to concede I might be overlooking something, and if you can provide some kind of justification for it, I'll be happy to accept it.

Is this enough for you, Chuck? Is this "valid and coherent" enough for you? Personally, I would much rather prefer China remain a militarily-quiet, economics-centric nation that does become a superpower in that way. It would be a very good template to show how to properly rise to power and influence in ways that don't require tons of bloodshed and violence. And up until recently it seemed to be going that route. Problem was their policies of endless borrowing and the disappointing returns have been constantly eroding that hope, and now as a result, they're turning to the idea of military power to make up for it.

So, my conclusion remains the same and might do so if all I get in return from this is more contrarianism without actually addressing the key factors, which, I'm afraid, is all you managed to bring to bear.

---

They are just desperatly trying to get public support through such actions. (My guess)
China would never risk ending the stability of the Pacific region.

This is my fervent hope. The alternative is a nightmare.

After all, when listing up all the neighbouring countries ne can only conclude that they are isolated.
Only Pakistan and Russia stand by them, the rest would side with the defendor if China should chose to be aggressive.

Well, Russia...not so much. Russia doesn't have much interest in going to war in general. Their economy isn't nearly stable enough to deal with a major war between global powers, and despite the immense levels of corruption in their higher echelons of government I don't think they'd be willing to risk shattering their nation's shaky economy by participating in a war that wouldn't be of much benefit to them at all. I WOULD, however, state that Iran is an ally you forgot to list. Iran's all but just waiting for an excuse at this point. If it turns out North Korea ISN'T a puppet now, and they're acting of their own accord, then they too are just waiting for an excuse. If they're not being influenced by the US now, then a war between the US and China would be the perfect opportunity for them to strike at South Korea, and Pakistan is just waiting for the opportunity to strike at India. Again, let's seriously hope this isn't the case.

[Minimalist]

And what will they do with them once they get there?

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/china-to-re...l+Ideas%29

A massive urban development program, in which the Chinese government aims to relocate 250 million peasant farmers to burgeoning urban centers, is set to begin in earnest this fall. "The government, often by fiat, is replacing small rural homes with high-rises, paving over vast swaths of farmland and drastically altering the lives of rural dwellers. So large is the scale that the number of brand-new Chinese city dwellers will approach the total urban population of the United States — in a country already bursting with megacities." While consistant with the government's history of social engineering policies, the urbanization plan reverses previous emphasis on farmers' land rights.

[Creed of Heresy]

Well I dunno what the Chinese exactly intend to do with them but the same thing will happen to those poor bastards as happens to all undereducated country hicks who get dragged into the inner city: They'll fail to integrate, build up social cliques among others like them, and ultimately end up working in fast food joints, retail supercenters as cashiers/stockers, and gas stations for the rest of their lives if they're lucky. They'll likely end up as bottom-of-the-barrel dregs. A few will succeed, the rest will not, and the crime will go up up up and awaaaay.

---

Unless the Chinese have a plan to have them all go into higher-education facilities. And if they do that then they're definitely doing at least one thing smarter than the US does. "Let's spend billions on two wars people don't want, but not on giving everyone free higher education for 58 years. THAT'S a smart investment!"

Fuck you, Bush. Fuck you in the ass with a burning magnesium dildo.

[cratehorus]

craterhorus has been watching to much fascist iranian TV lately.

fuck you......... you weird ass white supremacist bigot............. your the most boring poster on this entire fucking website.......... probably the lamest person ive ever had this displeasure of chatting with online............... i would ask what you meant by that stupid retarded fucking statement.............. but im sure your reply would be just as boring and time consuming as very other worthless peice of shit you spam this fucking forum with

........you annoying lil fucking cunt.......... and my name is cratehorus not craterhorus........ learn to fucking read english

Now, I am aware that Gatestone is neocon [seriously, did you and Cratehorus just pull a fucking poison-the-well fallacy on me?? NOT a good way to start a debate, guys!],

awwwwww... when did you take me off ignore creed i thought you didn't like my posts ever since i smacked you around when i first joined this forum???

[Creed of Heresy]

Oh I occasionally read your posts when other people insinuate you've said something stupider than usual. Kind of like your first posts, when the only person who got smacked around was you [if the fact that everyone else was agreeing with me and mocking how idiotic and out-of-touch with reality your statements were was an indication]. Occasionally they're amusing. Other times they're just shit. Kind of like this most recent one.

[Anomalocaris]

Gordon Chang, author of "The Coming Collapse of China," said...

Blah, Blah, Blah......


Is this enough for you, Chuck? Is this "valid and coherent" enough for you?

Gordon chang is a lawyer by training, and is without discernible standing as a economist, policy analyst, nor, for that matter, as a pundit with any track record of having been proven right on any significant original prediction he has made in his career of punditry, ever.

His claim to fame is one strident book called, as you were so impressed by, "the coming collapse of china", whose thesis was that the 4 largest state owned banks in china are in fact so insolvent that they would cause all of china to implode through their collapse by 2006. His correctness is such that 7 years after china's "collapse by" date has passed, he is still selling himself as the oracle of how china will collapse. Those same 4 banks in the meantime, far from having collasped, have all climbed into the top 10 spots in the list of world's most profitable and well capitalized banks. One of them, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, is actually number 1.

Gordon chang sings a single note to the one audience that would forgive any falseness in the note because they like the note so much, sort of like dooms day preachers who keeps talking after the world has alledgedly already ended because his audience thinks anyone who invokes god and bible so many times can't be far wrong even if he is, well, totally wrong.

Whenever a piece of news or statistic seemly favorable to china is published, Gordon chang would predictably sing his one note and go on the punditry circuit to claim it is either false or would be reversed tomorrow. In this spirit gordon chang made this - amongst many other - spectacularly idiotic prediction the week after Forbes reported that China has overtaken the US in total automobile sales. He prognosticated that the US would surpass china again the very next year because China would collapse, and as a result the US would never again be overtaken by China. In reality China has registered more auto sales than the US EVERY YEAR since, and by ever larger margins.

His track record has not cause him to cut his losses by making fewer and less extreme predictions. When one makes predictions to the effect that this or that nation will collapse, one will inevitably, if one waited long enough, be proven right because all nations, China included, will eventually collapse some time before or at the end of the universe. Maybe this is the brilliant insight behind chang's strategy always doubling down AFTER event has proven his predictions about China to have been false.

In fact, if you keep doubling down on the prediction that the world will end tomorrow, eventually, after a few thousands of trillions of years, you too will be proven right.

So, You would not have been any less credible, valid or coherent if your had supported your views on cosmology with quotes Harold Camping, than you are by supporting your views on china with quotes from gordon chang.

Is that level of credibility, validity and cohenece enough for you?

[The Grand Nudger]

The only thing that -doesn't- serve their interests is an all out apocalyptic war with the US. They don't have to fire a shot to become a superpower...but if they do fire a shot...they are almost certainly going to wind up a super-sized pile of rubble. I don;t think that you ought to worry about that too much......one assumes that the engineers of Chinas emergence of late are as aware of this as anyone else. They'll be busy doing whats best for China (a category of things that doesn't include a war with the US) - not whats best for end of days scenarios. Meanwhile, there -is- a very good reason to project strength, as you;ve noticed Creed...there are alot of nukes in the general vicinity of China........there's nothing to be gained from being the sissy on -that- particular block. Eh?

(Chuck, was it you that posted a link to the new crop of chinese officials that's starting to replace the old..I recall thinking that some of those guys actually seemed qualified..lol - I've been trying to find that article for awhile....I can't seem to search it out on the forums.....)

[Anomalocaris]

China has been ruled by engineers since Deng Xiaping died.

Basically, from 1949 - 1976, China was ruled by Mao, various other old school communists revolutionaries and some glorified warlords who hitched their wagon to the communist horse at the right time. From 1977-1992, China was ruled by Deng, who was also an old communist revolutionary, but who trusted and relied on engineers more than communist ideologues. From 1992 on wards, China has been ruled almost entirely by engineers, although there is a slight trend to promote more economists and social scientists to the top spot in the last leadership transition.

[cratehorus]

China has been ruled by engineers since Deng Xiaping died.

Basically, from 1949 - 1976, China was ruled by Mao, various other old school communists revolutionaries and some glorified warlords who hitched their wagon to the communist horse at the right time. From 1977-1992, China was ruled by Deng, who was also an old communist revolutionary, but who trusted and relied on engineers more than communist ideologues. From 1992 on wards, China has been ruled almost entirely by engineers, although there is a slight trend to promote more economists and social scientists to the top spot in the last leadership transition.

i personally don't understand what happened to china's cultural revolution after all they founded maoism..... why they stopped killing buddhists and taosits i'll never know..............

[The Grand Nudger]

Boredom, maybe?