Interesting , the US dominate all except one field in the Biotechnology,and there is only one top spot that the USA occupy outside of Biotech.
Looks like the USA and China definition of "important field" different.
Trade War with China
- Thread starter Ultra
- Start date
- Status
Looks like the USA and China definition of "important field" different.
How you calculated this 2.5 billion?
Laos GDP is 16.85 (2017 ) billion, and the project value is 8 billion.
So, the railway cost 50 % of Laos yearly GDP
Additionally, the article that you mention doesn't say that the investment " will benefit because of the increased efficiency", but rather that the 1$ spend on infrastructure will flow through several times in the economy, creating new jobs by the requirement of local companies/workers, and the consumption by them.
So, the 1 for 5 should be true only if the workers are from Laos, the companies from Laos, the suppliers from Laos as well. Oh, and if the government officials are not corrupt, the economy efficient and so on.
( I suggest to read the articles that you actually link , and try to evaluate them in the context of topic)
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
plus
#3194 Anlsvrthng, Today at 12:14 AM
baiting with "so thanks again @Jura : ) )"
which
Anlsvrthng
might claim was a joke, not trolling, so
now went through
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/sd-forum-rules-of-behavior.t7851/#post-486470
and there's
GENERAL RULES:
- This is a professional forum. Do not make nonsensical claims or points. Moderators will remove them and ask you to stop.
Anlsvrthng
but everyone please don't respond to him/her anymore
LOL I guess this is our best chance
According to , the Chinese part of the railway, for which Laos pays nothing, costs $8 billion and involves building 134 bridges and who knows how many tunnels.
The says that Laos borrowed $465 million, presumably for its portion of the route. Multiply that by 5 and we get $2.5 billion, the permanent boost to Laos' GDP -- if the usual applies.
The Chinese part of the railway costs $8 billion. Laos only needed to borrow $0.465 billion and will only need to pay $25 million a year.
Not only does Laos get a cheap loan (2.3% interest), the country also doesn't have to pay for most of the project. This is what the West calls "robbery by China".
No. You forget the continuous benefit of working railways.
I suggest you actually understand my comment before replying.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Haha you try to change the goalpost again? You argued that income had decreased. I showed that disposable income had increased. That's the end, you're wrong. It doesn't matter if disposable income includes interest, debt or savings (not sure why you mentioned savings; income can't include savings. Another term you don't know maybe?). You said income dropped by "calculations" and I showed hard data that income rose.
Uh, no, it wasn't one typo; it was that everything you wrote was a typo. Saying your equations contained a typo is like saying that a dropped box of toothpicks contains a typo away from Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Every comment, every person has told you your "calculations" make no sense from first to last number, and every time, you delude yourself by saying it's just one typo.
Yes, those figures are from professional economists, and it's basically a report of the numbers as fact. It's not a policy. That you tried to point out some errors of professionals doesn't make you better by one bit. Space shuttles sometimes explode, satellites fail, mega-structures sometimes crumble, but the professional engineers who designed them are nevertheless the only people capable of pushing science forward and are still giants amongst insects compared to those without a degree but like to imagine personal capability.
Looks like the US and China prioritize different fields? Haha Nice spinning! Like if one country gets 40 gold medals at the Olympics and another gets 10, that just means they prioritize different sports! In truth, if the US was not in the top 3, it might show that this was not a field that it prioritized, but being in second place shows it was overrun by number one. From my understanding of the world, holding a silver medal in your hand doesn't mean that you didn't prioritize winning.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Michael Pillsbury was on Fareed Zakaria's show this morning. Here's the White House's new talking point because a few days ago Trump's economic advisor Larry Kudlow said the same thing saying the US demands verification as part of trade talks. What's to verify? Verification of what? Do they mean they don't count how many products are imported and exported to and from each country already? Maybe that's just a word they're throwing out there for the American public so to make it look Trump is doing something to cover-up correcting a problem he created in the first place. Or are they talking about China developing technology which they want to China to stop while they get to do it freely?
Apple just lost $55 billion due to bad numbers coming out of China and they haven't even been hit with Trump's tariffs yet. Meeting Trump in the "middle" only allows Trump to lie about how he humiliated and force the Chinese to their knees. If China doesn't want Trump or any President or politician afterwards to spin and lie about China like they've been doing forever, China should let the policy Trump started play out so they can feel the consequences of their actions. No life line for Trump so he can spin saving the US from himself.
Pillsbury also complained about China's asymmetrical warfare tactics. The US spends $13 billion on an aircraft carrier that China can destroy with all their far less expensive anti-ship missiles they're developing. Just because the US spent $13 billion on an aircraft carrier which they will use against China, China somehow has to consider not destroying it because that would be unfair that China didn't spend $13 billion dollars on a missile to counter. It only shows how easily China will win against the US not the other way around. They'll lose on the wimp-snowflake factor alone spending so much time complaining about how unfair China is with their asymmetrical tactics. They won't spend more money to defend against it so they think laying a guilt trip on China will work. Do they think how unfair it is when they use their advance military technology against countries with far less capabilities?
Apple just lost $55 billion due to bad numbers coming out of China and they haven't even been hit with Trump's tariffs yet. Meeting Trump in the "middle" only allows Trump to lie about how he humiliated and force the Chinese to their knees. If China doesn't want Trump or any President or politician afterwards to spin and lie about China like they've been doing forever, China should let the policy Trump started play out so they can feel the consequences of their actions. No life line for Trump so he can spin saving the US from himself.
Pillsbury also complained about China's asymmetrical warfare tactics. The US spends $13 billion on an aircraft carrier that China can destroy with all their far less expensive anti-ship missiles they're developing. Just because the US spent $13 billion on an aircraft carrier which they will use against China, China somehow has to consider not destroying it because that would be unfair that China didn't spend $13 billion dollars on a missile to counter. It only shows how easily China will win against the US not the other way around. They'll lose on the wimp-snowflake factor alone spending so much time complaining about how unfair China is with their asymmetrical tactics. They won't spend more money to defend against it so they think laying a guilt trip on China will work. Do they think how unfair it is when they use their advance military technology against countries with far less capabilities?
To a large extent the Chinese lag in biotech is self-inflicted. The Chinese Communist Part has put a heavy emphasis into traditional Chinese medicine to the detriment of scientifically proven Western style medicine. It is not to say that the knowledge of traditional Chinese medicine is totally useless but unless some treatment or procedure is scientifically proven it should be given less emphasis in medical training. The Soviet Union had a similar prejudice against 'cybernetics' i.e. computers which meant that they lagged the West in that technology for several decades despite having several pioneers in the field. There was always limited funding and what products got done were kept heavily compartmentalized so it never attained general use or economies of scale until it was too late.
We in the West also had herbalists (still do) but it is not considered as a mainline way of treatment and is typically treated as such by medical insurance mechanisms. Which is not to say that it was or is useless. Take aspirin for an example. It is a chemically synthesized form of the active ingredient in willow tree bark which provides the anti-inflammatory and fever reducing effect. The bark has been used as an herbal medicine for thousands of years. But the synthesis of aspirin allowed the mass production of treatments. Making them cheaper and also reducing the chance for side-effects. The Chinese have moxibustion. Here in Europe blacksmiths (yep) used to poke people with hot irons to alleviate severe pain. My grandfather for example got that done to him and it basically alleviated his severe back pain. But you won't find anyone doing that here now today. It is basically a lost technique.
Last edited:
Thanks for the details about the share of investment.
The other parts about the benefit of Laos:
It is your link, if I want to argue with you I need to simply copy parts of it here.
I really suggest to read it.
- Status