Actually not anymore, China's learned from the mistakes of the US and EU, its the west that has spent money on stuff that doesn't work while China is controlling the bubble deflation with strategic liquidity injections to ease the depression on these bubbles without triggering an all out crisis.
Defeating China's Anti-Access Strategy: The US Perspective Part
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
- Status
Actually not anymore, China's learned from the mistakes of the US and EU, its the west that has spent money on stuff that doesn't work while China is controlling the bubble deflation with strategic liquidity injections to ease the depression on these bubbles without triggering an all out crisis.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
And the Same charges have been leveled at the PRC economic figures.
Please for the love of humanity will some one please tell me In what kind of a world we live in when Rolling Stone Magazine is a reliable political News Source? might as well read Mad for news of the day.
Please for the love of humanity will some one please tell me In what kind of a world we live in when Rolling Stone Magazine is a reliable political News Source? might as well read Mad for news of the day.
I notice you don't have an actual argument against what is said, what's more Rolling Stone isn't perfect but to say that their journalistic integrity has no value is somewhat flawed since have had in their employ influential figures like Michael Hastings.
Besides the point of the article isn't just to point out the flaws of the system, but the flaws of treating the credit rating as infallible, when they're not a UN or government institution or anything of the like. If they are privately owned and operated they should be expected to follow market laws, diversify the system to recognize other credit rating agencies not connected to these American and British firms.
Also pretty sure even high level officials in the PRC, like the President and Premier have admitted to the faulty of nature of reliable figures from Chinese sources, have the US or Britain admitted this about theirs?
Besides the point of the article isn't just to point out the flaws of the system, but the flaws of treating the credit rating as infallible, when they're not a UN or government institution or anything of the like. If they are privately owned and operated they should be expected to follow market laws, diversify the system to recognize other credit rating agencies not connected to these American and British firms.
Also pretty sure even high level officials in the PRC, like the President and Premier have admitted to the faulty of nature of reliable figures from Chinese sources, have the US or Britain admitted this about theirs?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I was to busy Reading it.
So then here's the problem with Establishing a Government or UN credit rating.
One has in it's interest to give as high a rating as possible.
two the Government has no clue how to budget!
The UN? WORSE!
So then What do you go by then?
The Credit ratings are not perfect but they do have one critical factor they reflect the view of investors and potential for growth. The US is now a AA+ rating it used to be a AAA rating ( the strongest rating possible) it was downgraded because of Spending by both the Obama and Bush administrations.
So then here's the problem with Establishing a Government or UN credit rating.
One has in it's interest to give as high a rating as possible.
two the Government has no clue how to budget!
The UN? WORSE!
So then What do you go by then?
The Credit ratings are not perfect but they do have one critical factor they reflect the view of investors and potential for growth. The US is now a AA+ rating it used to be a AAA rating ( the strongest rating possible) it was downgraded because of Spending by both the Obama and Bush administrations.
Equation
Lieutenant General
LOL...was that from the clip of Ghostbusters 1 or 2? Anything with Bill Murray in it is always funny.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The first Ghostbusters movie. Which I am going to go see on the big screen on Sunday, supposedly it was a Favorite of President Ronald Reagan, Who it is said watched the movie over and over again viewing it as a parable of The Small business person's Struggle.
So before you read it you insult the source to misdirect from the original question.
The idea that a government has not ability or willingness to budget is more a failure of current politics, the UN or rather a new international entity akin to the world bank or WTO would be better, again that's not to say any one solution is the best solution, if anything we should have as many new players in the market as possible. China, Russia and less prominent credit rating agencies joined into a global coalition in HK in response to the recent scandals.
The problem with the current regime isn't government, UN or private sector involvement or lack of involvement, its more fundamental, its that this is an artificial oligopoly, making it as diverse as possible with both private and public firms, make it much harder to corrupt and increases diversity and competition which means higher likelihood of a real good quality, truthful credit ratings and many 'second opinions' investors can turn to.
Pretty sure every capitalist economist, except Ayn Rand maybe, would agree that monopolies are bad for the health of a capitalist economy.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I insult the Source because the Story is just that. A story, It's part of a Oped that is meant so supposedly make a earth shattering revelation when their are no details no meat just raw opinion and quotes that have nothing to do with the American Government The American Credit rating or the standing of the nation.
Here's the thing. The Obama administration changed the way they count GDP, and then went back 5 years (convienently ever since he has been in office) and recalcuated things based on this new method. So, with all of that, they were able to turn around what was expected to be a 1% GDP growth, into a 1/7% GDP growth and now they are crowing about it.
Well, it's really a 1% growth, which is absolutely anemic and atrocious, based on the way it has been calculated histroically...but they wanted something to point out that was "positive," so they cooked the books to give themselves a 1.7% growth...which ITSELF is still a lack luster, very anemic growth rate for any recovery. In fact, atrocious would be the word for historical reference.
Sadly, you cannot trust or believe any figures coming out of this administration. They change the way they calculate GDP now, and have changed the way they calculate unemployment, the debt, and all sorts of figutres...all to make themselves look better than they are...and even then it still is sad.
However, all of this is far afield and off-topic from what this thread is about...so I now end my OT comments.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
How do economic figures have to do with anti-access strategy? It's sort of like the blogger saying he's leaving out the politics of the US and China going to war. Oh I understand that economics does play a role but find it strange one can take the politics out of war when it does play a role. I can see many political reasons how the anti-access strategy of the blogger fails because it doesn't account politics. One example is where he breaks his own rule by believing all the countries that have territorial disputes with China will all join in with the US. Why would that be a question? Because some of the supposed allies of the US can't protect themselves with all the advanced toys the US has so why would they pick a fight with China when they can be easily attacked. The blogger's strategy doesn't account how is the US going to protect every ally that will join in when they can't match China's military might. Then they have to account that anything short of outright victory by the US and control of China is bad news for them when dealing with China in the future. The blogger's strategy doesn't seem to deal with occupation of China. He also suggests that all this is pre-emptive by the US. Like China isn't going to protect its assets knowing of an impending US attack? If it doesn't work, all these allies will be dealing with a very angry China being isolated like the Soviet Union. And lets not forget the use of nukes. How many people believe the US won't use nukes on China from the start? The same excuse for using them on Japan applies here. Nothing has changed since. Americans don't take casualties well even if they inflict more on the enemy. How are the neighbors going to feel especially China has nukes. If the US wants to take out China's nukes so they don't represent a threat, they're going to have to use a lot of them and quickly. Try to contain that fall out. US limited nuclear strike... China still has nukes to nuke it neighbors at least and they would be legitimate nuclear targets for allying with the US. You can't avoid the politics of war because it plays the most important role.
Every time I see a thread about someone vs. China, China always seems to be restricted on what it can do or have. The other side can account for the future but China can only have with what it has now. If it were so easy to take on China like everyone makes it, why don't they do it now? Every day that passes makes it harder. You can have as many cheerleaders showing how the US will win on paper all you want. But the sole reason why no dares to put their money where their mouth is are the unknowns that are not on paper. All the US's advanced toys protects the US but not all the allies who will according to paper apparently follow the US blindly without question. They'll sacrifice for the US that won't get touched half way around the world. All these strategies don't seem to account for the consequences China's neighbors will have to suffer if the US doesn't outright win and occupy China. This Air Sea strategy doesn't change the Chinese government. What results is the neighbors have to deal with a China situation that's a million times worse than before. Sound familiar? It's the same irresponsible short-sightedness of Obama and Hillary in thinking the Arab Spring was so fantastic for the US.
Every time I see a thread about someone vs. China, China always seems to be restricted on what it can do or have. The other side can account for the future but China can only have with what it has now. If it were so easy to take on China like everyone makes it, why don't they do it now? Every day that passes makes it harder. You can have as many cheerleaders showing how the US will win on paper all you want. But the sole reason why no dares to put their money where their mouth is are the unknowns that are not on paper. All the US's advanced toys protects the US but not all the allies who will according to paper apparently follow the US blindly without question. They'll sacrifice for the US that won't get touched half way around the world. All these strategies don't seem to account for the consequences China's neighbors will have to suffer if the US doesn't outright win and occupy China. This Air Sea strategy doesn't change the Chinese government. What results is the neighbors have to deal with a China situation that's a million times worse than before. Sound familiar? It's the same irresponsible short-sightedness of Obama and Hillary in thinking the Arab Spring was so fantastic for the US.
- Status