Another "New" chinese system.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Never ran a business but as a councillor on Budget scrutiny I did look after $700m (£400m) a year of public money for four years, so I suspect I know as well as you the difference between the gross amount, and how much of that you actually have to play with.

Good, then you know that there is a tipping point in which the system as a whole needs to fundamentally change or it will collapse. In a business this might mean massive layoffs or protection from bankruptcy. Where that tipping point is in China's economy is beyond my scope of knowledge. However, I do not presume that significant double digit reductions in imports and exports could be brushed off without major problems. Not when it is coupled with a commensurate amount of unemployment and general decreases in essential services, such as food and fuel.

Since you know the above, then you must also know that measurement of economic vitality in monetary value alone tells one nothing. For example, the importation of copper probably amounts to an insignificant portion of the Chinese economy as a percentage. But knock out copper and all of a sudden there is a massive reduction in the ability to provide housing, electricity, machinery, and of course manufactured goods. In other words, knocking out a little thing might mean a huge knockon effect. One or two of these might be overcome given some time and major effort, but if there are too many too quickly the system may not be able to handle the effects. And even if it does adapt, it might be living on borrowed time. A detailed examination of Nazi Germany's economy from 1943-1945 shows this quite clearly.

One also has to consider where it is China is getting its spending cash from. Not its own people, that's for sure. The money is coming in from the outside, allowing China to improve its infrastructure and standard of living for its own people. To the degree the foreign currency is reduced, so too is China's flexibility to do things.

Oh and as we are mentioning previous discussions, I have pointed out the propensity of the US to continually undersetimate, the resiliance and will of it's opponents, The korean, and Chinese in the fifties, the Vietnamese in the 70's and now the Iraqi's and Afghans.

And it is the propensity of non-US people to underestimate the US' ability and overestimate its adversaries. Like the Europeans that didn't think the Americans had it in them to fight either in 1917 or 1941 I still remember the dire predictions of what would happen to US forces in the conventional phases of both wars against Iraq. As for the aftermath, I personally did *not* underestimate the challenges. In fact, it is why at the time I did not support going to war against Iraq the way we did and when we did. I was confident we could kick the door down without much of a problem, little to no confidence that we'd know what to do once we occupied the house. I didn't think we'd screw things up this badly, but then again I didn't bargain for gross incompetence of those making the big decisions (I only predicted ordinary incompetence).

You may think that a set back in the economy would change China and send it in to crisis, but I think they are as well suited and able to weather a recession as the US was in the 30's.

Indeed given the numbers of Chinese who have died in the last 50 years without the system changing, I'd say they were probably more capable of sustaining the fight than the US.

Yes, the Chinese have endured privations that we Westerners can hardly grasp. But the new Chinese appear to be learning that it doesn't have to be that way. Every story I hear coming out of China reinforces this. The totalitarian control over the people is slipping. The main reason why it's still put up with is because life is actually improving year over year. Take that away and I think you'll find a totally different attitude between the people and the government. I for one think the Chinese leadership is very, very aware of that. As I said, I have nothing but respect for the way the Chinese government has been handling the transition from Maoism to Capitalism.

Look at flooding, China almost on a regular basis suffers damage and death tolls greater than the Floods in new Orleans, but it doesn't seem to shake them the way it did the US.

Ah... no. That's the foreign media having a fun time with the story they want to tell rather than the one that really exists. Yeah, Americans were pretty disappointed and pissed off at the poor response. But "shake" the American people? Not at all. Some politicians were not reelected indirectly because of it, that's about it. No talk of revolution, no disenfranchisement with the "American Way of Life" or any of that nonsense. You also forget that Americans have a short attention span. Hardly anybody outside of Louisiana even remembers Katrina. In fact, that's a bit of an issue since the Bush Admin has not followed through on its responsibilities and promises to help the area out.

Anyway, the point is that your perception of how things work in the US is "off", to say the least. I have no doubt that a war with China would be disastrous to the American economy and way of life, but fundamentally little will change. A bunch of politicians will be booted out of office, another bunch put in their place. The US governmental structure has a few hundred years more experience than the current Chinese government and it has endured a war of liberation, a civil war, and 5 or 6 major international wars (depending on how you count things).

The vast bulk on Chinese have only the most rudimentary health care and no pension provision worth talking about, but they live with it. Mention cutting pensions ofr reforming medicare in the states and politicains hide under their desks.

That's because we live under Democratic principles. Meaning, our politicians have the luxury of being able to hide without worrying that someone is going to come for their worthless hide with a weapon and a nasty disposition (which is a problem, IMHO). The Chinese, on the other hand, have no such luxury. When discontent starts up they can either bribe people or intimidate them. In this scenario bribes will not be possible so force will be the only alternative. Personally, I'm betting that the Chinese people are educated enough now to stand up for themselves in significant numbers that would make Tiananmen Square look like a rugby scrum between two friendly teams. At least I bet that the Chinese government is sufficiently worried about this possibility that they won't do something to test the theory if they can avoid it.

But anyway... this is all really off topic. The fact is that a conventional war between the US and a major (or even minor) power in the near future is pretty much out of the question. Those that would like to exploit this weakness militarily, like China against Taiwan, have reasons to keep such overt actions in check. They are, on the other hand, leveraging the US' strategic weaknesses in other ways that are probably far more profitable. Not very good subject matter for wargames though

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I still remember the dire predictions of what would happen to US forces in the conventional phases of both wars against Iraq.

Oh, come on. You know that the US attack on Baghdad was a 1:1 reenactment of Stalingrad.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

And it is the propensity of non-US people to underestimate the US' ability and overestimate its adversaries. Like the Europeans that didn't think the Americans had it in them to fight either in 1917 or 1941

The US entered WW1 in April 1917, In the preceeding two months, Germany had resumed unrestricted attacks on shipping including sinking three US merchantman near the US East coast, and had been caught trying to get Mexico to enter the war, against the US. It didn't actually declare war on Austria/Hungary till 8 months later in devcember.

It declared war on Japan on 8th Nov 1941, the day after the attack on Peral harbour, but not on Germany or Italy. Germany and Italy actually declared war on the US on the 11th Dec.

So there is very strong evidence that those in Europe who thought America wouldn't fight were right, in both cases the US entred for real when they effectively came under attack.

Come to think of it the War in Terror didn't start till the US was attacked on it's home soil either.....

Peter.

[JasonC]

China isn't going to implode, for economic reasons or any other, whether they lose trade with the US or not. It is a continental multi-trillion dollar modern economy. (That means it picks where shortages hit it, readily substitutes and shifts resources to alleviate bottlenecks etc).

It is by now the leading producer of many heavy industrial goods and raw materials. It is most definitely financing its growth out of savings from its own production - in fact it deliberately prevents its people from consuming anything close to the full value they produce. They work very hard and consume little in comparison.

Yes they benefit from trade with their offshore producers and their tech, and from the US especially as an end consumer. They'd consume the same production themselves if we didn't buy it from them.

A full naval blockage would hurt the Chinese economy more seriously than a mere loss of the US market. Wouldn't destroy it though - see above re continental power.

[Abbott]

Peter,

My dad can whup your dad!

Steve,

I believe your point about some (or many) people seeing it, as an opportunity of “returning jobs to the U.S.” is very valid.

I myself am wondering when/if someone (a politician (s)) is going to propose military service for illegal aliens as a path to citizenship or at least a way of curbing the flow. Hell, train them up and send them over-seas, those mean little bastards love to fight anyway. Many of the Mexicans I have worked with are fine men and have made good soldiers. I believe that action would go a long ways toward answering the what-if argument that is likely to soon pop-up about manpower and lack thereof.

"An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps and fights as a team".

General George Patton Jr

[ November 21, 2006, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]