BF2S Forums On China

I agree. They've yet to experience an economic bust, it will be interesting to see how they're going to cope when our eventual downturn comes. I say eventual because at present it seems that too little is being done to try and save the economy, too slowly. Especially in Europe - the modus operandi seems to be to do as little as possible, at as late a time as possible with enormously painstaking, long political debate preceding it. Needless to say markets aren't exactly reacting the way people want. If they get on with their ideas of implementing eurobonds a lot of fiscal integration has to follow it - and fast. If not the EU can end up fragmented, get split up with two currencies - or worse - fail altogether, causing a worldwide depression of 1920s scale.

On the other hand we have the US, in which the fed has pretty much exhausted all its options. All the cards have been on the table for quite some time now and we're heading for yet another round of quantitative easing. With the economy in a ditch and politicians not addressing the most important issues in this matter, instead focusing on more polarization, removal of the middle ground and extreme policies (hello Bachmann winning the straw poll), I don't see any hopes of us getting anywhere. Merkel in Europe, having an impressive background demonstrating real intelligence but showing a complete lack of leadership where it's needed, and the other side Obama in the US, whilst being one of the most impressive speakers in modern history, pursuing the wrong values at the wrong time and being devoid of pragmatism.

In between of all this are the emerging economies, most importantly China, thinking "oh crap". They had placed their bets on the west by luring our investors and buying our bonds, and now the ship is about to sink. They know better than anyone that if it goes down, they're done for as well.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-08-15 13:07:20)

Kissinger is arguably the most experienced Western statesman WRT China. We would do well to heed his words.

If we think we have a boomer generation problem, it's nothing compared to China's. They have a population of roughly the equivalent of the US approaching retirement age, with no safety net to speak of. That will cause an enormous drain on their economy in the next few decades.

Beduin wrote:

military imperialist era is over. it all about business now. why invade a whole country, when you can invest in whatever is profitable for your bussiness. it will no longer be an issue of how other people live/think/govern. it will be more like: Shooww meeh the monnaaayyy

Two world wars, Germany couldn't dominate Europe.

One recession, and they are positioned to own more of Europe than they ever dreamed of previously... 

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Yeah but who's just going to roll over and really just give them the there country?

france

Spoiler (highlight to read):
it had to be said, sorry

rdx-fx wrote:

China plays a quieter game, but plays to win[/i]

You don't take on the big dog head on. You poison his food.

And yes, militarily speaking, America is still the big dog. That military is going to have a very hard sustaining itself though.

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Kissinger is arguably the most experienced Western statesman WRT China. We would do well to heed his words.

If we think we have a boomer generation problem, it's nothing compared to China's. They have a population of roughly the equivalent of the US approaching retirement age, with no safety net to speak of. That will cause an enormous drain on their economy in the next few decades.

Thing is with Chinese culture, the family stays together. Your parents raised you and you're expected to look after your parents after they retire. It's not uncommon for inlaws to send money as well.

I realize that. The problem is, there isn't enough savings or other funding in the economy to take care of these people, even with the burgeoning middle class.

Cold War - what's to apologize for?

Vietnam - have apologized repeatedly (part of the Cold War, btw)

Iraq - have apologized for specific instances in the war

Afghanistan - see above

Courses have changed in three of the four. Rdx's point remains valid. Nice troll, though.

hahaha

oh Dilbert, you so crazy

Cold War - So? Pointless posturing which was never going to achieve anything except mutual obliteration, how was that useful?

Vietnam - Can't have been a big apology.

Iraq - No really, what was the need to invade Iraq? And not, say, Iran, Syria or Pakistan - a nuclear armed state still more in bed with AQ and the Taliban than any other? Oh yeah, they're too big for the US to take on - better to send SF units after goat herders in Afghanistan than try a land invasion of a country with 200million fanatics.

Afghanistan - You're thinking of Saudi Arabia.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-08-16 03:52:05)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cold War - So? Pointless posturing which was never going to achieve anything except mutual obliteration, how was that useful?

Vietnam - Can't have been a big apology.

Iraq - No really, what was the need to invade Iraq? And not, say, Iran, Syria or Pakistan - a nuclear armed state still more in bed with AQ and the Taliban than any other? Oh yeah, they're too big for the US to take on - better to send SF units after goat herders in Afghanistan than try a land invasion of a country with 200million fanatics.

Afghanistan - You're thinking of Saudi Arabia.

Why was the cold war Americas fault?

Shocking wrote:

I think you're conveniently forgetting the Soviet Union in your analysis of the cold war Dilbert. It's not as if the conflict started for no reason.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iraq - No really,

Saddam, we went over this already.

And why wasn't the Ayatollah a bigger threat than Saddam?
Hint: He was.

No, they were just paranoid.