Crunching the numbers

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:52 pm

ladajo wrote:It is apparent that you attribute a level of stability and control to the Chinese that they themselves do not seem to agree with.
That is a worried government.
You seem to want to put them on a pedestal and grant them king of the world status. They are a long way from that. A very long way.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-0 ... k-absorber

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:42 pm

Joe, there is a big difference is saying that China GDP will eclipse US GDP in three years vice ten years.

Do you not understand that?

Also, no-one argues that current US Government Fiscal responsibility is questionable at best.

What you do not understand is that China is not what you think it is.
The only actual reasons anyone pays them attention is that they keep trying to pick fights regionally. They, through a comedy of circumstance, have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and, managed to make some nukes that make their neighbours a little nervous.

China is a mess, and they hide it well. You can do that when you control the media directly with force.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:02 pm

A different theory about China. Ignore the sales pitch at the end.

http://finance.uncommonwisdomdaily.com/reports/GRH/GO/

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:18 pm

DeltaV wrote:A different theory about China. Ignore the sales pitch at the end.

http://finance.uncommonwisdomdaily.com/reports/GRH/GO/

Care to give us the short version? I have no interest in listening to a long commercial. And the commercial starts at the beginning.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:34 pm

A little loose in his logic train.

Definitely a commercial. Makes me wonder if this guys was one of those who starting hyping gold in the last years.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:05 pm

ladajo wrote:What you do not understand is that China is not what you think it is.

We began talking after your statement that China is so resources constrained that can not make several thousands nuke warheads together with their delivery means.
That is not so. China's GDP is comparable with USA's GDP with the trend of overpassing. That's all what I would like to say.
And three years or ten years is nothing for a country having history about 5 thousands years. But IMF (International Monetary Fund) predicts the year China's economy will surpass U.S in 2016. What are talking about? And what do you want?
Ok, I do not know economics. But you - the military man know that better than IMF experts? I doubt. Ok, they can make a mistake on one, two, may be three years. But what this can change if trend is obvious?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:25 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:What you do not understand is that China is not what you think it is.
We began talking after your statement that China is so resources constrained that can not make several thousands nuke warheads together with their delivery means.
That is not so. China's GDP is comparable with USA's GDP with the trend of overpassing. That's all what I would like to say.
And three years or ten years is nothing for a country having history about 5 thousands years. But IMF (International Monetary Fund) predicts the year China's economy will surpass U.S in 2016. What are talking about? And what do you want?
Ok, I do not know economics. But you - the military man know that better than IMF experts? I doubt. Ok, they can make a mistake on one, two, may be three years. But what this can change if trend is obvious?

The IMF doesn't know economics either. Well let me revise that. They know socialist economics. They are ignorant of growth economics. Which is why they always say to countries in trouble: reduce government spending (good) and raise taxes (bad).

What countries usually do in response to the IMF is maintain spending and increase taxes. i.e. kill the economy.

BTW China is headed for collapse. I might worry about the Russians except they are drinking themselves to death.

China
http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects ... est-cities

http://www.globalresearch.ca/labour-unr ... es/5317380

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... s/1626821/

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:27 am

MSimon wrote:The IMF doesn't know economics either.

Very courageous statement.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:13 pm

Joseph,
I will make this as simple as I can so you have a better chance to understand.

We began talking after your statement that China is so resources constrained that can not make several thousands nuke warheads together with their delivery means.

China does not have the infrastructure to support this. I also doubt they have the will or available resources. Producing thousand of weapons and means of delivery takes massive amounts of work and materials. It also takes a long time. It is not something you just do.

China's GDP is comparable with USA's GDP with the trend of overpassing. That's all what I would like to say.

China's GDP is not comparable to the US GDP. Yes, for now, they are gaining. What will happen over the next ten years is not predicatable at all. It can be guessed at, but not predicted. You have also failed to note the huge disparity in energy use per capita, which also matters greatly.

And three years or ten years is nothing for a country having history about 5 thousands years.

Actually, tens years makes a big difference. Especially for a country that has spent the last 4975 years with the majority of the populace living the same as they ever have.

But IMF (International Monetary Fund) predicts the year China's economy will surpass U.S in 2016.

Really? We already looked at the numbers. They do not support this at all.
We also touched on the actual relevant factors, which you still completely do not understand.

I am certain I know more of National Strategy and Policy concepts than you, which includes Economics. I am also certain that the IMF knows less of this than you think. They are singularly focused.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:00 pm

ladajo wrote:I am certain I know more of National Strategy and Policy concepts than you,

Believe

ladajo wrote:which includes Economics.

not believe

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:10 pm

ladajo wrote:China's GDP is not comparable to the US GDP.

What do you mean saying "comparable"? Not "the same order of magnitude"? 7 trillions vs. 14 trillions
What does mean "Yes, for now, they are gaining"? Not groth rate of smaller economics is higher?

Not predictable what will happen in near ten years? I will risk to tell that there will be something similar to that occurred in tennis where Djokovic and Federer overtook Nadal.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:21 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:I am certain I know more of National Strategy and Policy concepts than you,
Believe
ladajo wrote:which includes Economics.
not believe

National Strategy and Policy concpets revovle around the idea of 'Whole of Government'. This entails the full use of 'DIME'. Which is otherwise known as the four pillars of power, Diplomatic, Information, Military and Economic.

Google away and learn something.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:30 pm

Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:China's GDP is not comparable to the US GDP.
What do you mean saying "comparable"? Not "the same order of magnitude"? 7 trillions vs. 14 trillions
What does mean "Yes, for now, they are gaining"? Not groth rate of smaller economics is higher?

Not predictable what will happen in near ten years? I will risk to tell that there will be something similar to that occurred in tennis where Djokovic and Federer overtook Nadal.

You would be making a major mistake if you think you can make that prediction. There are too many variables in play.

As for China/US GDP. They are not comparable at all. The GDP mechanisms are completely different for a starter. The two economies share almost nothing in common on basis and functional methodology. The prima facia of numbers is not even comparable, China is half in magnitude (granted gaining for now in rate delta). However, it is much more than numbers. That is what you do not understand.

This is not an engineering problem. Economics is just as much art (if not arguably more) as it is science. Unlike machinery, it involves a significant emotional content, and thus engenders art with the science.

It is funny, Russia used to be seen as ten feet tall as well. They are a lot shorter these days, since reality has set in for how the rest of the world and more pragmatic russians see them.

China's story is nothing new. Recirculating Hype mixed with Fear of the Unknown. Eventually a more realistic picture will emerge.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:32 pm

ladajo wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
ladajo wrote:I am certain I know more of National Strategy and Policy concepts than you,
Believe
ladajo wrote:which includes Economics.
not believe
National Strategy and Policy concpets revovle around the idea of 'Whole of Government'. This entails the full use of 'DIME'. Which is otherwise known as the four pillars of power, Diplomatic, Information, Military and Economic.

Google away and learn something.

I believe that you are a good specialist in military. That's all.
Thanks.
Diplomatic, Information and economic?
You made some statements about reasons of SU failure that I doubt you are the same class specialist in those branches.
Thanks again.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:37 pm

Well Joe, I guess I can say that I have a good basis in M, but have done some D and I as well. Some of theM, I and D work was related to E as well.
I also have taken (and applied via work) courses on Micro and Macro Economics at the Undergrad and Graduate levels. If you learn one thing from this conversation, it should be that D, I, M & E are all intricately linked and dependant on each other, especially when you are talking at the strategic level.

I don't think you have ever taken a Macro Economics course, let alone applied it professionally. I do not think it is my role to educate you on economic theory. It is apparent from my above posts regarding analysis of China and your replies that you do not even have the fundamentals to understand what I am talking about.

I also think that your perspective on the break up of the Soviet Union is very biased and limited in scope due your being Georgian. It is not your fault, just circumstance. You seem never really willing to accept that there can be other points of view on a topic.

For example, you claim three years on the world economic stage is nothing. I would offer that three years can bring dramatic change.
Any Economic System is a Chaotic System with unstable boundaries. Some boundaries are more stable, some are less.