A Yank on a Canuck Board

[jbg]

Wow. A nastygram!!! What a surprise coming from you!!!

Nothing nasty about it, or did you miss the winkie?

But the questions were serious, as you feel it is important that you have a top 10 position in greatest number of posts and you started a thread ALL about you. What does this signify to you? Why is it important to you? Did you consider longevity at the forum, lack of longevity at the forum, quality of what is put forth, just quantity, or is it a meanless stat?

What about responding to the rest of the post, or don't you understand it?

[jbg]

Wow. A nastygram!!! What a surprise coming from you!!!

Nothing nasty about it, or did you miss the winkie?

But the questions were serious, as you feel it is important that you have a top 10 position in greatest number of posts and you started a thread ALL about you. What does this signify to you? Why is it important to you? Did you consider longevity at the forum, lack of longevity at the forum, quality of what is put forth, just quantity, or is it a meanless stat?

What about responding to the rest of the post, or don't you understand it?

Still no answer? Can't answer?

[na85]

Again, I wouldn't worry too much about CatchMe. Even in my short time here, I've noticed she has a tendency to run her mouth about thngs.

[jbg]

Again, I wouldn't worry too much about CatchMe. Even in my short time here, I've noticed she has a tendency to run her mouth about thngs.

Thanks. I'd like her to run her mouth with an intelligent answer to an intelligent and good-faith question.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

jbg,

Be warned if you ever do move to Canada though, there are some expats within our (current) borders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1-XbZL7Lns

Speaking Hespaniol is just as useful in Québec as speaking American, so learning it in your end of the woods before coming would never hurt.

I'll have to agree about China... I'll learn Mandarin when I run out of other languages to learn, but even then that's unlikely to happen and I probably won't reap the rewards for the efforts in this lifetime. China is currently at number five in world economies, but they'll likely fall behind soon enough. The USSR was somehow close to ruling the entire world during the cold war, but they still didn't succeed.

God bless the West

[BC_chick]

I'm starting to use the expression [....] couch instead of a chesterfield.

What on earth are you talking about?

[guyser]

I'm starting to use the expression [....] couch instead of a chesterfield.

What on earth are you talking about?

Serious? Speaking America...a chesterfield is another name for a couch. Soda = pop napkin=serviette

PEEEcan= P'can (pecan) caramel = Care-A-mel= car-mal

foyer= foy- yer....that one grates me. But hey, it is what separates everyone.

[Drea]

actually it's foy-yay.

[BC_chick]

Serious? Speaking America...a chesterfield is another name for a couch. Soda = pop napkin=serviette

Sofa/Canadian, Couch/American okay. Chesterfied/Canadian, Dresser/American okay too (though I'd say most people say dresser and couch here too).

But Chesterfield = Couch, new to me.

BTW, never heard a Canadian ask for a serviette either. Maybe 50 years ago they did, but nobody I know asks for one.

[guyser]

Chesterfied/Canadian, Dresser/American okay too (though I'd say most people say dresser and couch here too).

But Chesterfield = Couch, new to me.

BTW, never heard a Canadian ask for a serviette either. Maybe 50 years ago they did, but nobody I know asks for one.

Not sure I have your post right...but anyway a chesterfield IS a couch, not a dresser. That would be a bureau.

I hear and use serviette a lot. Regionalism I suppose.

Now for fun can we talk Newfy ?

[jbg]

I'll have to agree about China... I'll learn Mandarin when I run out of other languages to learn, but even then that's unlikely to happen and I probably won't reap the rewards for the efforts in this lifetime. China is currently at number five in world economies, but they'll likely fall behind soon enough. The USSR was somehow close to ruling the entire world during the cold war, but they still didn't succeed.

God bless the West

Exactly. I consider China's "miraculous" growth to be drastically overstated. To the extent, for example, that "Chinese demand" is driving oil prices higher, I think much of their oil purchases is for speculation. That activity (in addition to Katrina and power problems, etc.) has created the sharp moves in oil prices, first, up to $77 (right after Katrina), then down to $54 (in November 2005), then up to $80 (July 2006), then down to $50 (November 2006), and now back in the $60's.

As most posters know, I do not go for "far out" theories. However, China's "prosperity" is based upon short-lived cost advantages based upon what amounts to slave labor. They are frequently, from what I know, putting down small rebellions that never make the press here. Similar to the way oil-based dictators, i.e. the Venezuelan, Mexican [democratic on surface but not really], Saudi, Iranian, Indonesian [democratic on surface but not really] and similar governments do not invest oil proceeds in local development and helping poor people, the Chinese oligarchs (more similar to the emporors of old than Communists at this point) invest in the stock, bond and futures markets rather than in their own country. I believe that at least some of their "demand" is a result of Chinese "playing the market" rather than coming from real economic activity.

When and if this implodes (as it usually does, witness Malaysia, Indonesia and Russia circa 1997-8) the price of oil will drop drastically. Think the Hunt silver debacle of January 1980, where silver dropped more than 70% in one day (I don't remember exact figures, but think it was from $40 to $8) and gold dropped from around $800 to around $600.

So yes, I consider Chinese prosperity to be largely a Potemkin village.

[blueblood]

I'll have to agree about China... I'll learn Mandarin when I run out of other languages to learn, but even then that's unlikely to happen and I probably won't reap the rewards for the efforts in this lifetime. China is currently at number five in world economies, but they'll likely fall behind soon enough. The USSR was somehow close to ruling the entire world during the cold war, but they still didn't succeed.

God bless the West

Exactly. I consider China's "miraculous" growth to be drastically overstated. To the extent, for example, that "Chinese demand" is driving oil prices higher, I think much of their oil purchases is for speculation. That activity (in addition to Katrina and power problems, etc.) has created the sharp moves in oil prices, first, up to $77 (right after Katrina), then down to $54 (in November 2005), then up to $80 (July 2006), then down to $50 (November 2006), and now back in the $60's.

As most posters know, I do not go for "far out" theories. However, China's "prosperity" is based upon short-lived cost advantages based upon what amounts to slave labor. They are frequently, from what I know, putting down small rebellions that never make the press here. Similar to the way oil-based dictators, i.e. the Venezuelan, Mexican [democratic on surface but not really], Saudi, Iranian, Indonesian [democratic on surface but not really] and similar governments do not invest oil proceeds in local development and helping poor people, the Chinese oligarchs (more similar to the emporors of old than Communists at this point) invest in the stock, bond and futures markets rather than in their own country. I believe that at least some of their "demand" is a result of Chinese "playing the market" rather than coming from real economic activity.

When and if this implodes (as it usually does, witness Malaysia, Indonesia and Russia circa 1997-8) the price of oil will drop drastically. Think the Hunt silver debacle of January 1980, where silver dropped more than 70% in one day (I don't remember exact figures, but think it was from $40 to $8) and gold dropped from around $800 to around $600.

So yes, I consider Chinese prosperity to be largely a Potemkin village.

Invest in India and the price of oil should stay relatively high and make China have to compete.

[BC_chick]

Not sure I have your post right...but anyway a chesterfield IS a couch

Hmmmm, never heard anyone say they're gonna kick back on the chesterfield and watch some TV.

[Mad_Michael]

Exactly. I consider China's "miraculous" growth to be drastically overstated. To the extent, for example, that "Chinese demand" is driving oil prices higher, I think much of their oil purchases is for speculation. That activity (in addition to Katrina and power problems, etc.) has created the sharp moves in oil prices, first, up to $77 (right after Katrina), then down to $54 (in November 2005), then up to $80 (July 2006), then down to $50 (November 2006), and now back in the $60's.

If Chinese oil demand consists of 'speculation' where are they storing all that oil they've been buying?

Merely bidding up the futures market might be considered 'speculative', if one doesn't execute the option. But if the buy is not executed, the 'fake' demand of the futures speculation itself, also evaporates.

But if you do execute the 'buy' option, then it isn't speculation - it is actual demand and the price of oil reflects actual supply/demand actions.

As most posters know, I do not go for "far out" theories. However, China's "prosperity" is based upon short-lived cost advantages based upon what amounts to slave labor.

Except one small little piece of data that you are overlooking. China is no longer the lowest cost producer in the third world - not even close. All of the growth in the Chinese economy has actually produced inflationary pressure on factory wages inside China.

While some low-cost companies are moving out of China because of this, seeking lower cost labour elsewhere in order to satisfy the US market, there is ample evidence that China is doing exactly what you'd expect them to do, following classical economic theory - they are trying to move up the value-added chain - just like every other (well managed) developing nation on the planet.

Btw, it isn't actually "slave labour" if wages are rising amongst private market companies according to the law of supply and demand. Indeed, it is classical economic theory and downright 'free market' like.

And I wouldn't call Chinese standard-of-living to be 'prosperity'. It is prosperous by 3rd world standards, it is average by developing world standards a long, long way from what we in the first world would call 'prosperous'. China's economy is booming, meaning it is growing fast. That does not mean the people there are prosperous - they aren't (yet). And there is a huge disparity in 'GDP per capita' type numbers between the coastal half and the inland half of the country, making general or average 'standard of living' comparisons inside China problematic.

Similar to the way oil-based dictators, i.e. the Venezuelan, Mexican [democratic on surface but not really], Saudi, Iranian, Indonesian [democratic on surface but not really] and similar governments do not invest oil proceeds in local development and helping poor people, the Chinese oligarchs (more similar to the emporors of old than Communists at this point) invest in the stock, bond and futures markets rather than in their own country. I believe that at least some of their "demand" is a result of Chinese "playing the market" rather than coming from real economic activity.

While I don't doubt the truth of this in the case of most 3rd world dictatorships, but the evidence with China suggests rather the opposite.

Haven't you noticed that China holds $1.5 trillion US dollars in US Treasuries in the Central Bank of China? They pretty much own the US national debt (Japan owns a big chunk too).

If the leadership of China was secretly sucking away the billions into foreign banks, that would have a beneficial financial effect (for the USA) of reducing the size of this monster reserve (and the increasing rate it is growing at).

When and if this implodes (as it usually does, witness Malaysia, Indonesia and Russia circa 1997-8) the price of oil will drop drastically. Think the Hunt silver debacle of January 1980, where silver dropped more than 70% in one day (I don't remember exact figures, but think it was from $40 to $8) and gold dropped from around $800 to around $600.

Except in Malaysia, Indonesia and Russia circa 1997-98, there was ample evidence of very high levels of asset valuation, rising debt levels and weak foreign currency controls. All three also showed (and continue to show) extensive institutional weaknesses in their financial markets. China shows no signs of the same factors (though their financial institutions are similarly 'weak').

As for the Hunt family 'game' back in the late 1970's up to 1980, that was an attempt to corner the market in silver - an attempt to 'corner' the market on silver and force the price upwards. That was the private act of a private speculator, and as such, I fail to see how it is relevant to this topic of China.

So yes, I consider Chinese prosperity to be largely a Potemkin village.

China is not yet prosperous by western 'first world' standards. But they are well on their way.

And for a 'Potemkin village' they sure are pumping out the industrial pollution on a big scale, so those factories aren't empty facades - they are pumping the outputs. They are still a minimum of 30-40 years away from achieving economic equality with western status (measured by GDP per capita).

The real disparity is that for half of China's population (the coastal half), life is picking up, lots of jobs, houses, etc. but for the other half of the population (the inland half), life is still stuck in the 14th century with no education, animal drawn plows, wooden carts and living in one room shacks.

Sorry for jumping into this thread like this - I just saw the comments about China that I felt compelled to reply to.

[jbg]

As for the Hunt family 'game' back in the late 1970's up to 1980, that was an attempt to corner the market in silver - an attempt to 'corner' the market on silver and force the price upwards. That was the private act of a private speculator, and as such, I fail to see how it is relevant to this topic of China.

Who says China can't do the same thing?

And for a 'Potemkin village' they sure are pumping out the industrial pollution on a big scale, so those factories aren't empty facades - they are pumping the outputs. They are still a minimum of 30-40 years away from achieving economic equality with western status (measured by GDP per capita).

The real disparity is that for half of China's population (the coastal half), life is picking up, lots of jobs, houses, etc. but for the other half of the population (the inland half), life is still stuck in the 14th century with no education, animal drawn plows, wooden carts and living in one room shacks.

Sorry for jumping into this thread like this - I just saw the comments about China that I felt compelled to reply to.

Overall, you make quite good points, which I will have to look into. I do know that much of their exports are ultimately not paid for by politically well-connected import/export company. Perhaps there is some aspect of "losing money, and making it up on volume" at work.

[Mad_Michael]

It was with some surprise that I noted that I was the tenth most active poster. To my knowledge, I am the only non-Canadian on this list, and am proud to be there.

I'm the only Canadian in the top ten list at two different US political forums (5 digit posting totals)

I don't see anything significant about that.

Indeed, I've seen many Americans show more knowledge of Canada than many Canadians. As I've seen many Canadians show more knowledge of the USA than many Americans.

[Mad_Michael]

Who says China can't do the same thing?

The Chinese could flood the planet with US dollars which would cause a melt-down of the value of the US currency, which would cause a huge shock to the US economy.

But of course, the value of the Chinese reserve would drop at the same rate. Thus, they'd lose hundreds of billions of dollars doing it.

Yes, they could and would do it if the USA were to annoy them (like over Taiwan for example), but otherwise the Chinese own interest suggests that they would not do this.

Overall, you make quite good points, which I will have to look into. I do know that much of their exports are ultimately not paid for by politically well-connected import/export company. Perhaps there is some aspect of "losing money, and making it up on volume" at work.

There is. Many of the big old Chinese State owned enterprises are entirely unreformed and hideously inefficient and corrupt.

[Michael Bluth]

Yes, they could and would do it if the USA were to annoy them (like over Taiwan for example), but otherwise the Chinese own interest suggests that they would not do this.

Taiwan is a terrible *for example*.

As much as China has publicly maintained a hardline with the One China Policy they have never threatened true military action over the island. They would likely win militarily if they wanted to truly take Taiwan back. But they haven't done so for fear of costing themselves the economic benefits they havve gained with Most Favoured Nation trading status.

But they are going to destabilize their economy to a greater extent by starting an economic death struggle with the US in an attempt to devalue the US dollar? That makes no sense at all. Sorry Mikey.