I see no way this could ever backfire!

[Drich]

The Chinese rationale for getting a foot in the door of Egyptian food supply is pure geopolitics, and has nothing to do with Chinese food supply. The truth is Egypt can't even feed itself and has relied on subsidized food imports to feed its own citizens since at least the 1960s. There is not even the slightest possibility of the farms along Nile being used to export food back to China.

The truth is the recent Egyptian political upheavel has its ultimate roots in China. China like Egypt, has also lost the ability to feed its own citizens and has had to resort to large scale food imports since the late 1990s. But China is now importing food on such a huge scale that the world prices for food has shot up. China has the ability to keep paying the higher prices, but Egypt doesn't. Egptian government under Mubarek basically bankrupted itself subsidizing food imports to keep domestic food prices low and lower classes contented. When Egyptian government finally ran out of money and stopped subsidizing the food, popular discontent rose and Mubarek is overthrown.

Egypt is in no better situation now. It still can't grow enough food to feed itself, it's government is still bankrupt, and it needs massive subsidies from Saudi-Arabia to keep paying for its own food import needs. So the Chinese undoubtedly calculating that by buying up any domestic food production capacity in Egypt, when the prices are cheap due to uncertainty surrounding political stability, it could in effect put a knife to the jugular of any future Egyptian government.

Lester Brown of the Ny Times seems to think differently for some reason

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/opinio....html?_r=0

[Anomalocaris]

He didn't seem to contradict anything I said.

[Lemonvariable72]

Mmmhhhmmmmm those effects would be interesting to say the least. In China you would have huge lay offs, while in the us you would a massive remobilization. With a huge Hick up in production and possibly price.

which would force their hand in other areas.

China is buying up huge tracts of land in Africa along side the nile and using it to grow their crops/rice. If their economy faulters, they still need that food/land, and the water the nile provides. alot of the countries who depend on the nile for water are already mad at china for diverting so much of the water of the nile onto crops that do not benfit that region at all. If China can not buy what it needs they are big enough now to simply take it. They are now the only true world power. When a country monoplizes manufacturing it controls the modern world. Allowing it to simply do as it pleases. All it need do is simply make it's wants a 'moral mandate' and the people of the largest nation and most powerful nation in the world will follow their popular morality where ever their goverment leads them.
Kinda reminds me of revaltion, and how it speak of this massive army of the 'east.' The nile drying up ect..

Yes but then you run into another key problem that makes the chinese economy somewhat fragile. A worker in America or Canada makes enough money to buy what he produces, hence they are paid much more then a Chinese contemporary. A Chinese worker does not, and since many epeople cannot buy what they produce, hence they often rely on us to buy it.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Eggrolls rule!

[Drich]

He didn't seem to contradict anything I said.

You said:"There is not even the slightest possibility of the farms along Nile being used to export food back to China."

By the end of the first paragraph the ny times writer says:
"Affluent countries like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, China and India have descended on fertile plains across the African continent, acquiring huge tracts of land to produce wheat, rice and corn for consumption back home."

That looks like a contradiction to me chief.

Did you not read the quotation or was it your hope I didn't read it?

[Anomalocaris]

which would force their hand in other areas.

China is buying up huge tracts of land in Africa along side the nile and using it to grow their crops/rice. If their economy faulters, they still need that food/land, and the water the nile provides. alot of the countries who depend on the nile for water are already mad at china for diverting so much of the water of the nile onto crops that do not benfit that region at all. If China can not buy what it needs they are big enough now to simply take it. They are now the only true world power. When a country monoplizes manufacturing it controls the modern world. Allowing it to simply do as it pleases. All it need do is simply make it's wants a 'moral mandate' and the people of the largest nation and most powerful nation in the world will follow their popular morality where ever their goverment leads them.
Kinda reminds me of revaltion, and how it speak of this massive army of the 'east.' The nile drying up ect..

Yes but then you run into another key problem that makes the chinese economy somewhat fragile. A worker in America or Canada makes enough money to buy what he produces, hence they are paid much more then a Chinese contemporary. A Chinese worker does not, and since many epeople cannot buy what they produce, hence they often rely on us to buy it.

I think you quite seriously underestimate how large their domestic market is.

The Chinese domestic market for cars, home electronics, home appliances is already the largest in the world. The overall size of their domestic market is currently about 60-70% the size of American market.

It is true majority of Chinese (about 1 billion of them) are still poort farmers or migrate city workers. these don't make enough to possess much purchasing power.

But a minority, about 300 million, or about as many people as in all of the united states, make solidly middle class incomes or better by international standards. These people combined have purchasing power equivalent to about 60% of the total American domestic purchasing power.

Currently the forecast is for the total Chinese domestic market for all goods and services to surpass the total American domestic market in size and value by 2018.

[Anomalocaris]

He didn't seem to contradict anything I said.

You said:"There is not even the slightest possibility of the farms along Nile being used to export food back to China."

By the end of the first paragraph the ny times writer says:
"Affluent countries like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, China and India have descended on fertile plains across the African continent, acquiring huge tracts of land to produce wheat, rice and corn for consumption back home."

That looks like a contradiction to me chief.

Did you not read the quotation or was it your hope I didn't read it?

Look closer, idiot, and no, I don't think you can read, certainly not at the NYT level. But even so I, unlike whoever wrote your bible, would not stoop to stringing you with tall stories to exploit your propensity to see in what you read what you would like to believe.

[Drich]

You said:"There is not even the slightest possibility of the farms along Nile being used to export food back to China."

By the end of the first paragraph the ny times writer says:
"Affluent countries like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, China and India have descended on fertile plains across the African continent, acquiring huge tracts of land to produce wheat, rice and corn for consumption back home."

That looks like a contradiction to me chief.

Did you not read the quotation or was it your hope I didn't read it?

Look closer, idiot, and no, I don't think you can read, certainly not at the NYT level. But even so I, unlike whoever wrote your bible, would not stoop to stringing you with tall stories to exploit your propensity to see in what you read what you would like to believe.

You said there was no way any of the crops being produced in Africa, would ever go back to china.

At the end of the first paragraph of the New York Times article I referenced, it literally says countries like china are buying huge tracts of land, and are producing grains for the express purpose of being "consumed back home."
Which means those grain being produced in Africa are indeed being sent back to china. Which makes what you said absolutely wrong, and you a complete dumb ass for arguing the content of the nytimes article with out any proof that says otherwise.

This is intellectual dishonesty. Rather than admit your mistake and yield to the ny times article. You choose to attack the messenger. I want everyone to see this pattern of behavior not only in this instance but when ever most of you are backed against the wall topically this is a knee jerk response for the typical atheist position. To discredit the messenger rather that Address or concede the message.

In chuck's topical failure, he simply defaulted to what was natural to him when speaking to a Christian on any topic. To move to discredit the messenger when he could not discredit the message. It is my hope that the fact that there should not be any dispute here amongst the intellectually honest, that anyone who cares to read this should look for this behavior in your own works and the works of your peers, and move to raise the bar. To not default to personal attacks when you are at the end of your intellectual limits on a given topic, but to either step a side and simply not respond, or more preferably do some more research, before you foolishly spout off and paint yourself into a corner, forcing yourself to default to personal attacks as a last ditch effort to save face.

[The Reality Salesman01]

[Angrboda]

Emphasis below is mine; bolded blue text, Chuck; bolded green text, Drich or his source.

---

He didn't seem to contradict anything I said.

You said:"There is not even the slightest possibility of the farms along Nile being used to export food back to China."

By the end of the first paragraph the ny times writer says:
"Affluent countries like Saudi Arabia, South Korea, China and India have descended on fertile plains across the African continent, acquiring huge tracts of land to produce wheat, rice and corn for consumption back home."

That looks like a contradiction to me chief.

Did you not read the quotation or was it your hope I didn't read it?

Look closer, idiot, and no, I don't think you can read, certainly not at the NYT level. But even so I, unlike whoever wrote your bible, would not stoop to stringing you with tall stories to exploit your propensity to see in what you read what you would like to believe.

You said there was no way any of the crops being produced in Africa, would ever go back to china.

Having only read the last page and going only on your claims on this page, Drich, you are simply wrong. Chuck made a claim about the destination of food stuffs produced on the farms along the Nile. Your quoted author made a claim related to the entire African continent. Admittedly, the Nile plains are a substantial producing region, but they are not the whole of the African continent, not even if you only restrict it to arable farm land. And in this last page alone, between first post and last post, you claimed that Chuck said a) the Nile plain, and then, b) Africa as a whole. You cannot infer statements about the Nile plain from statements about the African continent as a whole.


You have said that, if I recall correctly, you left high school with a fourth grade reading ability. Here's a tip, Drich. After reading you more closely over the past year, it's clear that, after falling from the tree and hitting the ground, that particular apple didn't roll an appreciable amount.