China's strategy in Korean peninsula

t2contra said:

He did not say a trade war would favor the deficit nation. So how would it favor the deficit nation when its demand for goods from the surplus nation is strong?

Click to expand...

I never seen a math textbook stating that 59+111=170.

However based on the general mathematical rules I can accept that the above equatation as valid.

Same here.

Keynes saying that the economical downturnes caused by the lack of demand. The trade deficit remove demand from the US . Means that anything,that eliminate this trade deficit will increase the internal demand, and that will increase the econommical activity.

Anlsvrthng said:

I never seen a math textbook stating that 59+111=170.

However based on the general mathematical rules I can accept that the above equatation as valid.

Same here.

Keynes saying that the economical downturnes caused by the lack of demand. The trade deficit remove demand from the US . Means that anything,that eliminate this trade deficit will increase the internal demand, and that will increase the econommical activity.

Click to expand...

No, economics is much much more complicated than 59+111. Elementary students in China (high school in the US) can all easily solve 59+111 with a definitive, non-disputable answer. However, even top economists often cannot accurately predict economic effect from markers or market effect from decisions/event properly. As a matter of fact, 2 top economists can look at the same data and interpret them to indicate opposite things from each other. A lil' more complicated than arithmetic.

That little ending paragraph you posted is what you think will happen based on your highly limited experience analyzing a very limited number of factors in an entire field of possibilities. Do not try to pretend that Keynes said that because you clearly cannot find anywhere in which Keynes said that a trade war will benefit the country running a deficit. If you're trying to interpret what he said to somehow mean that, then say so, because that is very very different from him directly saying it.

Hendrik_2000 said:

I don't understand what is your problem I think he said the right thing just like any individual if you spend more than you earn you run into deficit. That should be understandable to 10 years old. That is what happened with US

Click to expand...

I don't think that even a 10 yrs old can make that mistake.
I suggest to compare NK with say the US, from economical standpoint.
The goverment is not the user of the currency, like every one else , but the ISSUER (creator) of it.
The society (goverment) using the currency to make the people doing things that they don't do/willing to do.

90% of the humans will do nothing if they receive a minimum level of living. They need initiative to work, and the money doing that trick.
In the old times the "work on field or die" was the rule, but you can not organise a modern society based on that.

So, again, the goverment (the soverign country) setting the base vector of the coordinate system. Everything else is defined in relationship with the goverment set rules . It is easy to think about the base vector like a normal ,general vector, but it is a mistake.A simple base transformations change all relationship in the economy, and all that it needs is a new law , or simply change in interest rate.

Hendrik_2000 said:

And stop carping about China take advantage of the world trade actually it US that take advantage of the world trade by imposing dollar as the world currency therefore reap benefit of low cost loan and allowing it to spend like drunkard . US need fiscal discipline
BTW your Brettonwood agreement is dead long time ago as soon as US stop pegging dollar to the gold
Read this excellent treatise

I am glad that someone in PLA knows the truth about US dollar.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

[Editor’s Note: In April, Qiao Liang, a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Major-General, gave a speech at a book study forum of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) Central Committee and government office. Qiao is the PLA strategist who co-authored the book, “Unrestricted War.”


In his speech, Qiao explained that he has been studying finance theories and concluded that the U.S. enforces the dollar as the global currency to preserve its hegemony over the world. The U.S. will try everything, including war, to maintain the dollar’s dominance in global trading. He also discussed China’s strategy, to rise as a super power, amid the U.S.’s containment.

Click to expand...

The equatation is simple.
The world international trade is around 10 trillion $/ year.
If China wants to be the issuer of the reserve currency of the world, then it needs to provide enought yuan to all countries to cover at least one year worth of trade.
China GDP is around 11. trillion $, so it means that China has to run trade DEFICIT in the range of 5% of its GDP for 20 years to provide enought liquidity for the international trade.

Simple math , isn't it?

manqiangrexue said:

No, economics is much much more complicated than 59+111. Elementary students in China (high school in the US) can all easily solve 59+111 with a definitive, non-disputable answer. However, even top economists often cannot accurately predict economic effect from markers or market effect from decisions/event properly. As a matter of fact, 2 top economists can look at the same data and interpret them to indicate opposite things from each other. A lil' more complicated than arithmetic.

That little ending paragraph you posted is what you think will happen based on your highly limited experience analyzing a very limited number of factors in an entire field of possibilities. Do not try to pretend that Keynes said that because you clearly cannot find anywhere in which Keynes said that a trade war will benefit the country running a deficit. If you're trying to interpret what he said to somehow mean that, then say so, because that is very very different from him directly saying it.

Click to expand...

C'mon. many math field more advanced than the normal primary school math, but it doesn't means that they don't have to obey the basic math rules, like 1+1=2.
So, doesn't matter what economical theory anyone dream, if it not satisfy the basic rules then it is FALSE.

The economy best part is a social science. many of its rules are just simple low level, limitedly usable rules, many cases only for same specific political reason.

Example the Neolib theory consider as the most important the equity and keeping stable the whealty.

You can use many rules in this framework.

Keynes considering the well being of the population as most important, and organise/use the rules in accordace with it.

See the demand/supply curves, and price elasticity.
If you use it for the job market, then you can quickly relaise that every other market will be deinfed by this . The neolib consdier the job market by the same way as say oil or gain market, Keynes saying that it is the most important market, and the main job of the goverment(country, society) is to keep it as seller's market.

And it connected to the long term prosperity of the country.
The only thing that is in limited supply is the worlforce only.
Every country success is dependent on its capability to use most effectivly its workforce.The GDP difference between China and US is due to this. It is possible only if the job market is allways tight, and the businesses has to found new ways to do more with less.

Yodello said:

Wow... That was a great insight into an incredibly complex set of developments that I would not even have dreamt possible...!
I wish China all the best and may she find the best people to guide and stir her leadership towards a great and bright future.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about?

antiterror13 said:

I have no idea what you are talking about?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was referring to post 1266 and 1267 by hendrik.

Anlsvrthng said:

I never seen a math textbook stating that 59+111=170.

However based on the general mathematical rules I can accept that the above equatation as valid.

Same here.

Keynes saying that the economical downturnes caused by the lack of demand. The trade deficit remove demand from the US . Means that anything,that eliminate this trade deficit will increase the internal demand, and that will increase the econommical activity.

Click to expand...

Your theory that economic war will solve the eliminate the deficit to me, is 59+111=170. Care to explain if why you don't think so?

t2contra said:

Your theory that economic war will solve the eliminate the deficit to me, is 59+111=170. Care to explain if why you don't think so?

Click to expand...

What is not clean ?

It is simple , if the US wants to get rid of its trade deficit, then it can change the rules of import/financing/international money flow until the deficit will be 0.
It is a soverign country, no one can restrict the right of the US to do that.
It is only takes time, to found out what rules needs to be modified to get it to zero.
Of course, if the US want to run trade surpluss then it needs a cooperative partner. In this case the EU , China or Japan has to allow to the US (goverment & US dollar based persons) to buy Chinese/Japanese/EU currency nominated financial assets.. The trade inballance needs equaly sized oposite direction financial ballance.

It is simply based on the factor
1. Sovereignty of every country
2. the simple arithmetic ballance of in/out flow

Anlsvrthng said:

What is not clean ?

It is simple , if the US wants to get rid of its trade deficit, then it can change the rules of import/financing/international money flow until the deficit will be 0.
It is a soverign country, no one can restrict the right of the US to do that.
It is only takes time, to found out what rules needs to be modified to get it to zero.
Of course, if the US want to run trade surpluss then it needs a cooperative partner. In this case the EU , China or Japan has to allow to the US (goverment & US dollar based persons) to buy Chinese/Japanese/EU currency nominated financial assets.. The trade inballance needs equaly sized oposite direction financial ballance.

It is simply based on the factor
1. Sovereignty of every country
2. the simple arithmetic ballance of in/out flow

Click to expand...

LOL.

It is that simple? Since it is a sovereign nation, why isn't it doing those things? You sound like 59+111=170. US has been incurring deficit for so many years and yet their Administrations have not thought of your ideas? How old are you? You take the cake.

Anlsvrthng said:

What is not clean ?

It is simple , if the US wants to get rid of its trade deficit, then it can change the rules of import/financing/international money flow until the deficit will be 0.
It is a soverign country, no one can restrict the right of the US to do that.
It is only takes time, to found out what rules needs to be modified to get it to zero.
Of course, if the US want to run trade surpluss then it needs a cooperative partner. In this case the EU , China or Japan has to allow to the US (goverment & US dollar based persons) to buy Chinese/Japanese/EU currency nominated financial assets.. The trade inballance needs equaly sized oposite direction financial ballance.

It is simply based on the factor
1. Sovereignty of every country
2. the simple arithmetic ballance of in/out flow

Click to expand...

What's not clean? LOL Everything's not clean. Looks like a NYC subway station. I've told you this before. You start a trade war, you stifle your own manufacturers who depend on the edge of getting the best prices in the world to create and sell their end products. If they don't get them, they resort to more expensive and less competitive alternatives opening themselves up to slaughter from international competitors that aren't hindered by that restriction. If your end consumers can't purchase cheap goods, they purchase less. If a blender cost $400 and a base laptop $3,000, Americans will have to buy less. Then American factory production will drop, then prices will increase further due to lack of scale. Those US companies were fine before outsourcing production to China and selling 10,000 units, now they sell 1,000 with barely a profit margin due to high US labor costs and low demand.No profit, no sales, then they have to lay off. Buyers can't afford, producers can't produce; that's how you stagnate your own economy. There are many more reasons that I can't think of because I'm not a professionally trained economist.

There is no such thing as 1+1=2 in economics. It's highly intertwined with psychology, and they are pseudosciences because there is nothing certain. Even the supply and demand curve is not certain. For example, for services like Uber and Paypal, the higher your supply and the more customers use it, the more it is a usable service and you can charge more for it. If the supply declines and the number of users drop, it becomes less usable and less valuable too.

Here's a tidbit for the future: whenever you think a problem is really simple despite many experts around the world struggling with it, know that the reason that you think that it's really simple is because you don't understand the problem. It's not because you're smarter than everyone else. For example, if engineers were struggling to make a cargo plane with heavier payload, don't chime in with, "Just make everything 50% bigger! That's so simple; it's like 1+1=2! 50% bigger = 50% stronger = 50% more payload! Arithmetic! What's not clean?" That's exactly what you sound like right now. There is a reason that no US administration was able to cut the trade deficit and it's not because their arithmetic is worse than yours and it's not because they enjoy upholding China's economy at the expense of their own.

"The more you know, the more you know you don't know." - Socrates