Uberche,

You are right, as here we go again.

You ask,
"How would China become the world power it has become without this money from the USA?"

Perhaps the economic transition would take an entire century, but China's ascention to a World Power would come about after years of developing its domestic economy first, before branching out its products to the rest of the World.

You rant,
"China has been spending billions upon billions building a massive arsenal of missiles...If the government is smart they'll pump a small fraction of the money they've made off the USA into those areas, create some great jobs and prospects for the future which will help the minorities and China and the people there will be less likely to listen to foreigners bitching about how evil China is."

This is the point that you seem to be oblivious. China has been unnecessarily spending billions to build her military because of the geopolitical and military challenges put forth by the US. If not for the current US foreign policy towards China, China would have had resources available to spend for domestic programs for all of China's people, as you suggested above.

You falsely educate,
"Those "toxic derivatives" are what drove this country to the success it's had, it gave hundreds of millions of people work and food and a chance at success. If China hadn't been buying the US's currency the US couldn't have bought all of China's products which would have slowed China's growth immensely which would have created a MASSIVE hole in the public trust of China's government who promised them jobs and a bright future."

The fact that the Chinese government in the 1980's accepted US Debt financing is their own fault. However, even after this so-called miracle of China's economic growth since that time, it is only relative since the majority of China is still poor, as most of the wealth generated focused on the coastal areas and were consolidated further as of today. Hence, the trade between the US and China in the last 20 to 30 years did help China to reagain a proper economic footing, but by no means transformed her to an industrialized nation such as the US.

Finally, you incorrectly theorize,
"China bought the US's money because China knows that money is just coming right back to China, here's how it works for those who haven't grasped the concept yet."

Your conceptualization of the above is wrong, since your outcome is not what the GPE* has in store for China. As I posted in my latest response to Tangerine, "China may think they can exercise soft power based on their holding of US Debt, but all the GPE* needs to do is to crash the US Dollar as we know it, watch the damage it will do economically/financially to both China and the US for that matter, and replace it with a new global fiat currency (i.e., the Amero, etc)."

Have a good weekend.


OBC

OBC [exquisite verb here*]:

Quote:
In the end, the GPE* will have a GPE* financially controlled China and a US population so destitute that they will be willing to become neo-serfs, as part of the GPE's* ultimate plan of neo-feudalism.

In the last few days i've been applying OBC's thinking to the many questions that have been puzzling me since oh, 2004-2005 and admit that by doing so the pieces of the puzzle fall into place horribly well. I remember distinctly wondering back then that the aftermath of the bubble-in-progress would be painful. This was before i knew a thing about the sub-prime mess and the credit default swaps. If little me could figure that out while living in a small, pleasant community in the State of Washington where the housing madness was relatively mild compared to California, Nevada, Florida then there's absolutely no way that those to whom we have entrusted control and oversight of our system wouldn't have known. No way either that it was a matter of Oops, i took my eyes of the ball and jeez, i'm soooorry.

It's peculiar as well how incapable we have become to fix anything, such as illegal immigration for which there actually is a law on the books and a database that needs some tinkering at relatively minor cost. Absolutely no need to build fences, real or virtual, along the US-Mexican border.

Many other odd things...

I'm merely musing aloud and still don't see the end-game. Tell me, OBC, what will be the benefit of having hordes of neo-serfs? Granted, the true-powers-that-be may have taken control by then over vast resources but neo-serfs don't strike me as a prosperous group of consumers to sell your goods and services to.

*Too late now!
Verbs to remember for next time:
to postulate
to presuppose
to conjecture
to hypothecate (!!!)


Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2009 05:19PM by Tangerine.

And After The Bell i came up with to equivocate. When in a pinch, feel free to use any of these, OBC. I'll be too reluctant to borrow your signature anyway. It would be a shame to let a good verb go to waste.

Tangerine,

You ask,
"Tell me, OBC, what will be the benefit of having hordes of neo-serfs? Granted, the true-powers-that-be may have taken control by then over vast resources but neo-serfs don't strike me as a prosperous group of consumers to sell your goods and services to."

If you recall my previous posts, another of the GPE's* main goals is depopulation and this is necessary to control the number of global serfs that will be allowed to live and serve the whims of the GPE* should they be successful in the creation of their NWO.

Having said that, now you can see why I have always warned everyone of the coming global wars that will be instigated by the the proxy nations of the GPE*.

Such instigated wars, pandemics, and etc. are necessary to depopulate the planet, while their systemic economic/financial crises sets the stage for a new World Government to administer the resulting global feudalism.


OBC

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2009 06:26PM by Overseas.Born.Chinese.

I just saw an interesting recap of some famous quotes by our big boys. They are so wise that quite a few of them are still going strong in the same positions they held then:

I don’t believe more regulation is the answer (March 2008 by then US Treasurer Hank Paulson)

The subprime market seems likely to be contained (March 2007 by Fed Chairman Bernanke)

A Government takeover was very unlikely (July 2008 by then Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd)

The fundamentals of our economy are strong (September 2008 by John McCain)

Bear Stearns is doing fine … don’t move your money (March 2008 by Jim Cramer, a TV Financial Analyst (???) This wisdom was spoken 3 days before Bear Stearns went kaput)

Our financial system is basically sound (July 2008 by then President George W Bush)

Fannie and Freddie are very solid institutions (July 2008 by Sen. Chris Dodd)

People are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel (April 2008 by Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein during a shareholder meeting)

Fannie and Freddie are not in danger of going under (Sept 2008 by Rep Barney Frank)

It’s hard for us to see … losing $1 on any of those transactions (by Joseph Cassano, Head of Financial Products Divsion at AIG. His nickname is The man who crashed the world. For this service he received a minuscule compensation of $315 million and then, for many months, became a $1 million/month consultant and continued to receive this even while AIG was receiving billions in bailout.)

Overseas.Born.Chinese Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps the economic transition would take an
> entire century, but China's ascention to a World
> Power would come about after years of developing
> its domestic economy first, before branching out
> its products to the rest of the World.

So you admit there is no way it could have exploded as fast as it has? Maybe, if it followed your plan and somehow found a way to create an internal market, like you described before, it might have been able to get out of it's position but it would have taken far longer. So the US money was very useful, as I said.

> This is the point that you seem to be oblivious.
> China has been unnecessarily spending billions to
> build her military because of the geopolitical and
> military challenges put forth by the US. If not
> for the current US foreign policy towards China,
> China would have had resources available to spend
> for domestic programs for all of China's people,
> as you suggested above.

If it wasn't the US it would have been Europe or Russia or someone else. Countries always have enemies.

> The fact that the Chinese government in the 1980's
> accepted US Debt financing is their own fault.
> However, even after this so-called miracle of
> China's economic growth since that time, it is
> only relative since the majority of China is still
> poor, as most of the wealth generated focused on
> the coastal areas and were consolidated further as
> of today. Hence, the trade between the US and
> China in the last 20 to 30 years did help China to
> reagain a proper economic footing, but by no means
> transformed her to an industrialized nation such
> as the US.

That's China's own fault. If China wanted to it could have developed the country as a whole more equally but it suited it's ideas better to leave some areas very poor and use their Migrant workers to build.

> Your conceptualization of the above is wrong,
> since your outcome is not what the GPE* has in
> store for China. As I posted in my latest
> response to Tangerine, "China may think they can
> exercise soft power based on their holding of US
> Debt, but all the GPE* needs to do is to crash the
> US Dollar as we know it, watch the damage it will
> do economically/financially to both China and the
> US for that matter, and replace it with a new
> global fiat currency (i.e., the Amero, etc)."

So basically because it doesn't fit your already existing idea it must be wrong... that's classic OBC I agree. You're a one track record and it's boring...

Overseas.Born.Chinese Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If you recall my previous posts, another of the
> GPE's* main goals is depopulation and this is
> necessary to control the number of global serfs

Just when you're sorta winning me over, you're losing me. We must cull the herd of the breeding rabbits because we're destroying the planet, causing the extinction of most other species and depleting the resources we depend on. Our species isn't a particularly interesting one. I'd guess that less than 1% of all homo sapiens that ever lived has contributed something unquestionably positive. That would be great art; science is a mixed bag; rulers and politicians have always been dreck and the masses have always been variations of serfs.

Depopulation must occur. We could do it peacefully over a few generations but i doubt we'd have the intelligence to do so. I suspect that you know as well as I do that the rate of growth in the human population is unsustainable. What would be your solution to tackling this problem?

PS. If you had read any of my posts on the theme of Homo Sapiens vs The Rest of The Animal Kingdom, you'd have long known my opinion on this issue.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2009 12:12PM by Tangerine.

Tangerine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Depopulation must occur. We could do it peacefully
> over a few generations but i doubt we'd have the
> intelligence to do so. I suspect that you know as
> well as I do that the rate of growth in the human
> population is unsustainable. What would be your
> solution to tackling this problem?

Yeah and the one country's who baby laws I agree with is making motions to change them... Say it ain't so China!!

Shanghai encourages second baby

Tangerine,

You ask,
"What would be your solution to tackling this problem?"

As to the problem of global overpopulation, there is no viable solution, since such a solution must be accepted be all nations on the Earth, which means a consensus must be reached, and would require a truly World government to administer and enforce.

My God, how this sounds what the GPE* wants.

Consequently, due to the anticipated lack of global consensus to any humane program put forth; war, famine, engineered pandemics, and etc. may be the only choices available to curb population growth for those in power.


OBC

Uberche, i heard, too, about Shanghai wanting to change its One-Child Policy. This broke my heart as i always found this policy the best and wisest the CPR has done and ought to have long been adopted by the rest of the world. Actually, no one knows what China's real population is. There hasn't been a census since 1989 and its actual inhabitants may well number around 1.6 billion.

[www.china-briefing.com]

OBC, please keep an open mind and don't view any trend as a diabolical scheme by the GPE. We lack the will to implement a viable solution against overpopulation and allow people to hide behind pathetic excuses like "playing God" and the "immorality of abortion" and so on. The outcome inevitably will be a war. It won't have to be orchestrated per se by the GPE. You talk about engineered pandemics. They will occur naturally with such highly dense populations and will be jet-set around the world within 24 hours. Most countries were very careful about H1N1 and still it's present in just about every country. It has already taken over 1,000 lives, outside of flu season! It will be interesting to see what happens in the fall and whether the virus will mutate.

There are other disconcerting trend at work to which people rather turn a deaf ear. It looks like the Green Revolution is turning out to be a disaster. This is already the case in the Punjab that for a while was the breadbasket of India. Instead of spraying against insecticides once, farmers there need to do so now six times per season. The groundwater under the fields have been sinking at alarming rates and now requires drilling down for water a few hundred feet because of the dropping water table. These are additional costs that farmers there cannot take on. Here's a little article on it; i'll try to dig up more this weekend:

[www.npr.org]
[www.foodfirst.org] (alternatives to the Green Revolution)

And let's not forget the deplorable conditions under which we raise cattle and chickens as if they were mere manufactured goods!

Perhaps a sensible way to solve both overpopulation and future food shortages is to turn to ... cannibalism. Hmm, i see a tasty free-range human walking across the street. Where's my machete?

So, mankind as a whole may beat the GPE in the race toward global destruction!

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2009 08:26PM by Tangerine.

Overseas.Born.Chinese Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
As to the problem of global overpopulation, there is no viable solution, since such a solution must be accepted be all nations on the Earth, which means a consensus must be reached, and would require a truly World government to administer and enforce.
My God, how this sounds what the GPE* wants.

Imho there's nothing wrong with a true world government, provided it's fair and equitable to all (Granted, not a small caveat. Globalization is actually increasing inequality everywhere, including in China). Global consensus is the only way we'll be able to reach consensus about global warming and what steps to take to f-i-n-a-l-l-y address this huge problem.

Since the cat is out of the back wrt to globalization, we also must come up with global regulations to avoid a repeat of what happened during the recent collapse of the economy.

As far as i'm concerned, you might drop the asterisk from the GPE designation as i acknowledge their existence. However, i don't see this as a group bent on destroying China but as a ruthless group of "power/wealth opportunists without borders." I don't see this group as sufficiently cohesive to carry out the diabolical schemes you attribute to it.

Tangerine,

You assess,
"However, i don't see this as a group bent on destroying China but as a ruthless group of 'power/wealth opportunists without borders.'"

I agree that the GPE does not want to destroy China, but they do want to Balkanize China into better manageable parts through a combination of financial manipulation, ethnic insurgency, government corruption, and in the end outright war.

You claim,
"I don't see this group as sufficiently cohesive to carry out the diabolical schemes you attribute to it."

In general, the GPE is loosely composed of some of the richest and most powerful non-Asian, non-Iranian, and non-Russian power brokers in the World. However, the major decisions are made by only a handful of the above mentioned and they are a very close-knit group.


OBC

OBC, do you play Go? I think so as you see the world only in terms of black and white.

You have the ability to blame the West (GPE, US or what have you) for all China's problems. Now, just to be clear, i have spoken only with admiration about its culture (you've never said a word about it!) and also positively about many of its policies. But it has some problems that are of its own making, among them ethnic tensions and corruption.

I don't believe your argument that only a handful players at the GPE have the power to decide about, say, breaking up China by means of a horrible war. If a member has say $10 billion, s/he is more likely to be concerned about how s/he's going to make his next 10 billion rather than acquiescing on how to ruin China. What i'm saying is that most of these members are part of these clubs strictly for their own benefit, i.e. how to get richer, more powerful, improve their standing in the history books. Which people make up this handful anyway? Are we still talking about the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds? I don't believe that they are on top of the heap in the billionaire's club.

You often refer to balkanization. The wars in the former Yugoslavia in the Nineties were deplorable but not really surprising (and not instigated by the GPE). Yugoslavia was the result of the break-up of the former Austrian-Hungarian and Ottoman empires after WWI. The various regions never had much love for one another and formed vastly different alliances during WWII. In fact, the intense hatred between them went back to the fourteenth century and only a strongman like Tito managed to keep them together.

Is balkanization a dirty word to you because you would have liked to see a united country under Serbia that would have close ties to and take commands from Russia?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/14/2009 08:51PM by Tangerine.

Tangerine,

I have never failed to recognize China's own internal problems with corruption, changing cultural values with her youth, and etc. However, in all of my posts, I have focused on those problems caused by the GPE.

You ask,
"Which people make up this handful anyway?"

If you are asking for a pecking order for the GPE, here is one to consider:
1. First Tier (GPE Decision Makers) - International Banking Families, English Royal Family, and Rockefellers
2. Second Tier (GPE Decision Executors) - Descendants of the European Dynasties, Global Industrialist from the West, the Leaders of the World's Major religions , and current Western Heads of State.
3. Third Tier (GPE Decision Followers) - Lesser Billionaire/Millionaires; Leading Scholars, Researchers, Journalists, and Media Heads.

Finally, you ask,
"Is balkanization a dirty word to you because you would have liked to see a united country under Serbia that would have close ties to and take commands from Russia?"

Balkanization, itself, is not a dirty word, but it was the means through which many nation states and/or empires were carved-up for another political goal or entity. You mention Yugoslavia and how it was Balkanized in disfavor of Russia and how Yugoslavia, itself, was a nation that was a result of the Balkanization of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire that was also a result of the Balkanization of the Holy Roman Empire even before.

If you are asking me whether I would have liked to see a greater Serbia under the sphere of Russia, then yes I would and for the only reason to provide another ally in the fight against the nations under GPE control.


OBC

Overseas.Born.Chinese Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
China's ... changing cultural values with her youth...

That worries me as well. Some of the posts at this site saddens me just about every day. The same has happened in Europe where entertainment often was an art form ( movies particularly from France, Italy, Sweden and French music of the 1950-70s often based on the work of leading poets). Most of these high standards have been replaced by profitable gimmickry for the masses. Still, both Europe and China have visible reminders of their rich cultural histories everywhere and i therefore think/hope that their populations continue to value these.

Quote:
If you are asking for a pecking order for the GPE, here is one to consider:
1. First Tier (GPE Decision Makers) - International Banking Families, English Royal
Family, and Rockefellers
2. Second Tier (GPE Decision Executors) - Descendants of the European Dynasties, Global Industrialist from the West, the Leaders of the World's Major religions , and current Western Heads of State.
3. Third Tier (GPE Decision Followers) - Lesser Billionaire/Millionaires; Leading Scholars, Researchers, Journalists, and Media Heads.

I'll comment on only a few:

The wealth of the Rockefellers have been greatly diluted over time; they still have some power but it is not overwhelming.

The European royal dynasties have no power and most of them are relatively poor (the only wealthy ones are in the UK, The Netherlands, and the guys in control over the European tax havens) whatever influence they have will be more and more diminished by the new superstructure of the EU. It's time that the Europeans recognize that the best thing would be to get rid of the entire parasitic bunch. They mainly serve the same function as celebrities in the US and give the masses something to gossip about.

What seems important to keep an eye on is whether the G20 will actually follow up on its London commitment of curtailing the power of tax havens. The only reason behind the prosperity of little enclaves like Liechtenstein and Luxembourg is that they offer loopholes to the global wealthy. The leadership ought to be accountable on why it has been and should continue to be okay that the wealthy are given free passes at the expense of the average voter.

Leaders of Major Religions: this worries me as well. But take the catholic church. It's still going strong in Central and Latin America (wherever the catholic church is entrenched, poverty is guaranteed!) but in Europe, even in very catholic countries, such as Italy, Spain and Northern Ireland, it has lost much of its influence. Europe, fortunately, still has a strong separation of church and state. Not too many desperate people there clinging to guns and religion. In the US, the religious right is losing its power and the GOP is on its way to become the next dodo bird. As to islam, i can't see the world or the GPE ever wanting to adopt a Saudi or Iranian lifestyle and revert back to the seventh century.

Having said all this, if we'll lack the will to do something quickly about global warming and overpopulation then it is all a mute point.

Tangerine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Correction: China holds about 800 billion in US
> debt; second is Japan with about 677 billion. That
> represents roughly 24% and 20% of US public debt
> held by foreign governments. Most of US public
> debt is in the form of intragovernmental debt,
> i.e. the unsustainable entitlement programs.
>
> There are always two sides to a coin: China's
> heavy investment in US debt poses a risk if the US
> were to default but it also provides China with a
> great lever over US foreign policies.
>
> I obtained these figures from
>
> [en.wikipedia.org]
>
> and verified some of the numbers with data
> directly from the US Treasury, such as
>
> [www.treas.gov]
>
> With all due respect, OBC, anyone who bought those
> toxic derivatives was a fool and would have known
> better if he had done any due diligence. Doesn't
> matter whether those investors were China, France,
> Lehman Brothers or Calpers. Do you have any
> figures for China's investments in the toxic soup,
> as i don't believe that in the overall scheme of
> things its investment was all that significant?


I think it there are something to explain.
About China's exchange controls:
One of the most reason of the quick economy increasing in China is foreign investment.
And China is a country has a stronger exchange controls than US.
So if you want to invest money into China,you must change your dollar to RMB in some banks given by our gorverment.So these dollars is our foreign exchange reserves.Of course,
selling goods can get dollars too,but most of our foreign exchange reserves are investments.These are not our money in fact,The investors can changer their money back use RMB if they got their profit.
So,what should China government do?Just hold the money?No,there are exchange rate depreciation.They must do something to make sure the money won't lost.So Us bonds is a choice.

Truth is China won't become a democracy anytime soon. why? Money, they have more money than God right now, and will for some time. People look at the Soviet Union, thinking that, because it happened there, it will happen in China as well. That's just not the case, as the Soviet Union effectively went backrupt and collapsed, no such risk in China at this time.

China will remain a communist state because of money. They have a lot, and the guys who are in charge of that doe also are in charge of the country. As long as they have enough of a cash surplus to grease palms and effectively run the country, there will be no civil unrest, and no collapse.

Some day, when most people are middle or upper class, and 3/4 of the people are not farmers worrying about where their next meal will come form, then they will start to care about politics and freedom, that is not the case at the moment, maybe in 50 years, but not anytime soon, that's for sure.

Truth is China won't become a democracy anytime soon. why? Money, they have more money than God right now, and will for some time. People look at the Soviet Union, thinking that, because it happened there, it will happen in China as well. That's just not the case, as the Soviet Union effectively went bankrupt and collapsed, no such risk in China at this time.

China will remain a communist state because of money. They have a lot of it, and the guys who are in charge of that doe also are in charge of the country. As long as they have enough of a cash surplus to grease palms and effectively run the country, there will be no civil unrest, and no collapse.

Some day, when most people are middle or upper class, and 3/4 of the people are not farmers worrying about where their next meal will come form, then they will start to care about politics and freedom, that is not the case at the moment, maybe in 50 years, but not anytime soon, that's for sure.

China is not even a little bit communist. It's somewhat Socialist but even that isn't really correct anymore... Not sure what you'd call it.

Brian99,

I agree with your last post.

China will not make any strides in political freedom, unless it reaches a certain level of development. This level of development would entail a substantial proportion of China's population earning middle class wages and sharing at least a high school education.

Having said that, China still has a long way to go, despite those who believe China should sacrifice attending to its own domestic problems, in order help the current Global Financial Crisis. Furthermore, it behooves China to ensure that its best and its brightest people stay within their country to ensure its economic development.


OBC

Sadly best and brightest in China doesn't mean much anywhere else, so not hard to keep the "best" and brightest of China in China.

The problem in this regard is China's poor education system, one which is not free, even though the government is quite well off financially speaking. Many farmers still can't afford to send their children to public schools. The best and brightest often are not even getting an education.

Than there is the poor state of Chinese education in general. Corruption often makes it possible for students to buy their grades, via cheating, or bribes, and low teacher wages create teachers who don't care if students do cheat. Add to that a skin flint government which doesn't invest nearly enough in education, and you end up with a lot of under educated people with college degrees.

Quality education is clearly not a priority in China at the moment. This puzzles me, seeing as the Chinese Government spent 40 billion "American" dollars on the Olympics, more than any other country in history. Had they funneled this money into education, think of what they could have done. Now look at Western countries, who are the real innovators of the world. They may be in debt, but only because they subcontract most of their work to under developed countries, and built too many nukes during the arms race, their financial shortfalls are not because of investing in education.

America, Britain, these are the countries that make and invent more or less everything the rest of the world takes for granted.

If only the Chinese followed the example set by the west and invested as much in education, maybe they could become innovators as well. This would require more than just good education though, it would also require a level of free and outside the box thinking that the Chinese, with their current hive mentality, have yet to achieve.

It's sad to see a country so flush with cash misusing it. Education should be their number one priority, instead it is quite low on the list. Until it's made a priority, China's "best and brightest" won't stack up to the best and brightest produced by the education systems in Western countries, nor will China ever become a world leader until this happens.

As long as the main priority in China is things like passing off 14 year old gymnasts as 16 year old's, and making a quick buck, China's best and brightest won't mean a hill of beans in the world arena, that's for certain.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2009 11:59PM by Brian99.

spoken well,Brian99,especially"it would also require a level of free out of the box thinking that the Chinese, with their hive mentality, have yet to achieve."you are the best.