19 Facts About the American Economic Collapse.

[Toro]

China will be a much bigger economy in the future. But between now and then an epic crash is coming IMHO. America had many booms and busts when it was a developing country. China will be no different.

 

[rdean]

IOW you are sheeple. They do vote the same, and govern the same 95% of the time.

Democrats voted en masse for the Iraq war. Obama has extended virtually everything you vilified Bush for.

Partisanship = brainwashing or insanity.

I believed Bush. Many people did. The crime wasn't believing the president. The crime was the president's lies.

Lying seems to be a big part of the Republican Party.

 

[rdean]

China will be a much bigger economy in the future. But between now and then an epic crash is coming IMHO. America had many booms and busts when it was a developing country. China will be no different.

What is wrong with you people?

China has hundreds of millions of slaves. That's way different than the US.

 

[william the wie]

China will be a much bigger economy in the future. But between now and then an epic crash is coming IMHO. America had many booms and busts when it was a developing country. China will be no different.

Where will they get their labor force to do so? Singapore, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and some lesser Asian lights are aging faster than China but still China's economy has the same problems as western Europe but without the nearby labor source of Africa and southwest Asia for gastarbeiten.

 

[Toro]

China will be a much bigger economy in the future. But between now and then an epic crash is coming IMHO. America had many booms and busts when it was a developing country. China will be no different.

Where will they get their labor force to do so? Singapore, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and some lesser Asian lights are aging faster than China but still China's economy has the same problems as western Europe but without the nearby labor source of Africa and southwest Asia for gastarbeiten.

China is not a developed country. It can still grow at a much faster pace than it's population.

 

[loosecannon]

and it's population is only 25% utilized so far.

 

[loosecannon]

Back in the 90s when China still published accounting statemenbts what was astonishing was even then its economy was a zero plus cashflow model based on money creation. That was despite mandated forced savings in excess of 20% of GDP. A 25% reinvestment rate yielding a 10% income growthrate indicates really serious fragility problems. When China will crack is unknown that it will crack is known.

20 years ago China was on par with Cuba but with many more mouths to feed.

20 years ago the US was the unrivaled Cinderella of the world, a recent "victor" of the Cold war and the apex predator of the planet. Our debt was entirely reasonable our economic and military might unchallenged, we were as solid as a rock.

But everything has changed in 20 years. We are beyond broke and beyond repair while China is proving themselves more powerful than the US.

If you don't realize that, then tell them to break the peg. See what they say.

 

[antagon]

I would characterize China's progress in developing a vertical business organization capacity to serve 40% of our US consumer needs to be very considerable, perhaps 60% accomplished within 15 short years.

I could see something happening to abort China's growth. Like a trade war or a debasement war.

But I can't see the surrounding SE Asian nations being capable of competing with China. China is predatory and will find ways to undermine those efforts like empires always do. For one thing they can set up shop in those nations if labor costs ever do fall below their own. Meanwhile they can focus on products that require higher technology and skill, and pay better wages.

If Japan had a population 10 times as large, Japan would already be the world's superpower. Japanese are also very smart people. Hell if Israel had a population land and resource base 100 times as large they would be the world's superpower by now.

I don't discount that it is possible for events to enfold and prove you right. I just view China as being perfectly capable or engineering a rise to the top given their considerable advantages. Like having 5 times as many geniuses within their population as we do. And we manage our affairs so pitifully below our own ability that we are our own worst enemy.

I mean if we are not even gonna try to erect a nationalist effort to protect our economic power then how could we possibly prevail?

China has been starving for centuries and they are f-ing hungry!

the moment you talk about higher wages, you are talking about a less competitive position for china.

without a question, all of the other nations in asia are already competing with china. any advantage relinquished will be absorbed by other nations in the region. globalization goes both ways, and is omnipresent.

as to china expanding into dominating the distribution chain i digress back to their business model's onus on growth and employment rather than profit. i argue that such moves as you suggest are marginal to date and that this is because they're not fitting with this low-margin high-growth model. japan and the US are nations with publicly traded firms looking for profit potential all over the planet. this is why we have invaded china's labor force. because the sustainability of china's industrial complex is dependent on their government and there is more demand for growth than there is for profit, i don't think your vertical distribution chain expansion is in the cards in china's near term.

i get the impression that you've superimposed what you would do or what other countries will do granted being in china's statistical position. i argue that position is a proceed of a specific business model with a great deal of momentum and which they feel is working. like any bubble, the constituents feel righteous in their direction, right to the end.

is china different?

 

[antagon]

and it's population is only 25% utilized so far.

this is a problem for china, not a virtue in the short term.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

19 Facts About the Horrific American Economic Collapse!

The deindustrialization of the United States should be a top concern for every man, woman and child in the country. But sadly, most Americans do not have any idea what is going on around them.

For people like that, take this article and print it out and hand it to them. Perhaps what they will read below will shock them badly enough to awaken them from their slumber.
19 Facts About The Deindustrialization Of America That Will Blow Your Mind - BlackListed News

The following are 19 facts about the deindustrialization of America that will blow your mind....

#1 The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001. About 75 percent of those factories employed over 500 people when they were still in operation.

#2 Dell Inc., one of America’s largest manufacturers of computers, has announced plans to dramatically expand its operations in China with an investment of over $100 billion over the next decade.

#3 Dell has announced that it will be closing its last large U.S. manufacturing facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina in November. Approximately 900 jobs will be lost.

#4 In 2008, 1.2 billion cellphones were sold worldwide. So how many of them were manufactured inside the United States? Zero.

#5 According to a new study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, if the U.S. trade deficit with China continues to increase at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.

#6 As of the end of July, the U.S. trade deficit with China had risen 18 percent compared to the same time period a year ago.

#7 The United States has lost a total of about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since October 2000.

#8 According to Tax Notes, between 1999 and 2008 employment at the foreign affiliates of U.S. parent companies increased an astounding 30 percent to 10.1 million. During that exact same time period, U.S. employment at American multinational corporations declined 8 percent to 21.1 million.

#9 In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented 11.5 percent.

#10 Ford Motor Company recently announced the closure of a factory that produces the Ford Ranger in St. Paul, Minnesota. Approximately 750 good paying middle class jobs are going to be lost because making Ford Rangers in Minnesota does not fit in with Ford's new "global" manufacturing strategy.

#11 As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.

#12 In the United States today, consumption accounts for 70 percent of GDP. Of this 70 percent, over half is spent on services.

#13 The United States has lost a whopping 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

#14 In 2001, the United States ranked fourth in the world in per capita broadband Internet use. Today it ranks 15th.

#15 Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.

#16 Printed circuit boards are used in tens of thousands of different products. Asia now produces 84 percent of them worldwide.

#17 The United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that the Chinese spend on goods from the United States.

#18 One prominent economist is projecting that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040.

#19 The U.S. Census Bureau says that 43.6 million Americans are now living in poverty and according to them that is the highest number of poor Americans in the 51 years that records have been kept.

This problem can be solved by simply enacting a bill to redistribute a trillion dollars over the next ten years, from the middle class to wealthy individuals, like me, who earn over a million dollars a year.

 

[editec]

The US has a sustainable economy?

If China goes belly up the majority of our retailers will have nothing to sell.

Many of our auto makers would not have needed parts to build cars.

around 1/4 of our materials for making prescription medicines would vanish.

We allowed our leaders to put us into this position.

FREE TRADE is anything but free, folks.

It has cost the American people, and the governments upon which we depend trillions in lost wages and tax revenue.

And FWIW, both party leaderships bought into this goofy notion that we didn't need an industrial base, too.

They're either very stupid people, or they've been lying to the American people for decades.

I'll leave it to ya'll to decide what you think their motives really were.

 

[uscitizen]

The US has a sustainable economy?

If China goes belly up the majority of our retailers will have nothing to sell.

Many of our auto makers would not have needed parts to build cars.

around 1/4 of our materials for making prescription medicines would vanish.

We allowed our leaders to put us into this position.

FREE TRADE is anything but free, folks.

It has cost the American people, and the governments upon which we depend trillions in lost wages and tax revenue.

And FWIW, both party leaderships bought into this goofy notion that we didn't need an industrial base, too.

They're either very stupid people, or they've been lying to the American people for decades.

I'll leave it to ya'll to decide what you think their motives really were.

Yes we allowed our corporate leaders to do this.
Our govt was paid well by those corporate leaders to allow it as well.

 

[loosecannon]

the moment you talk about higher wages, you are talking about a less competitive position for china.

sure. But if labor is only 40% of the wholesale cost of Chinese goods then a 20% wage increase will have almost no impact on retail prices here in the US.

as to china expanding into dominating the distribution chain i digress back to their business model's onus on growth and employment rather than profit. i argue that such moves as you suggest are marginal to date and that this is because they're not fitting with this low-margin high-growth model. japan and the US are nations with publicly traded firms looking for profit potential all over the planet. this is why we have invaded china's labor force. because the sustainability of china's industrial complex is dependent on their government and there is more demand for growth than there is for profit, i don't think your vertical distribution chain expansion is in the cards in china's near term.

i get the impression that you've superimposed what you would do or what other countries will do granted being in china's statistical position. i argue that position is a proceed of a specific business model with a great deal of momentum and which they feel is working. like any bubble, the constituents feel righteous in their direction, right to the end.

is china different?

Maybe. Yes. I agree that I am projecting my own fears and concerns into China's position. But as our own government seems impotent to respond to China's peg and with China's aggressiveness surfacing I feel those fears are justified.

And I have seen the groundwork laid for a decade that would eventually result in China owning a distribution chain within the US. You are correct they may have to open themselves up to public trading, but they will do that in China in renminbi when they do.

I am anticipating an attempt by China to snap up large positions within American retail giants like Target, or perhaps the wall mart chain. I expect a sort of retail crunch here this year and that may be the window of opportunity.

Of course trade wars or serious currency debasement may interupt that scenario. Maybe even a micro war over obscure disputed islands. There is a lot of room for real world events to gum up the works of China's economic ascent. So let's make that happen!

 

[loosecannon]

and it's population is only 25% utilized so far.

this is a problem for china, not a virtue in the short term.

It is both. I definitely think it renders useless any argument that their workforce is too small as a % of pop.

 

[william the wie]

and it's population is only 25% utilized so far.

this is a problem for china, not a virtue in the short term.

It is both. I definitely think it renders useless any argument that their workforce is too small as a % of pop.

Their workforce is fully, if seasonally, employed. The leadership is simply afraid of creating agri-business ogliarchs while eating huge adult education costs to absorb the peasant farmers.

 

[Scout1965]

Article is bullshit, neubarth can't you do the math according to no.1 statement at least 15.5 mil. jobs lost and then no.7 says 5mil. manufacturing jobs have been lost.

I found the article this was based on, "The plight of American manufacturing: since 2001, the U.S. has lost 42,400 factories--and its technical edge". The earlier poster made what appears to be an honest math error.

"Since 2001, the country has lost 42,400 factories, including 36 percent of factories that employ more than 1,000 workers (which declined from 1,479 to 947), and 38 percent of factories that employ between 500 and 999 employees"


He added 36 percent and 38 percent to get approximately 75 percent. The problem is that 36 percent of factories over 1000 workers are not the same as 36 percent of factories. 36 percent of factories over 1000 workers could equal 5 percent of all factories. The same logic applies to the above 500 worker category. This is why the math doesn't work. FIVE million manufacturing jobs lost in less than 10 years still seems to be a major problem for America but not necessarily for the companies that are exporting the jobs or to the Chinese that are enhancing the incentives for them to do so.

 

[loosecannon]

this is a problem for china, not a virtue in the short term.

It is both. I definitely think it renders useless any argument that their workforce is too small as a % of pop.

Their workforce is fully, if seasonally, employed. The leadership is simply afraid of creating agri-business ogliarchs while eating huge adult education costs to absorb the peasant farmers.

I said 25% utilized, not employed. Gardening by hand is not considered full utilization in a modern economy.

 

[antagon]

the moment you talk about higher wages, you are talking about a less competitive position for china.

sure. But if labor is only 40% of the wholesale cost of Chinese goods then a 20% wage increase will have almost no impact on retail prices here in the US.

i'm pointing to a competitive position between china and other nations, and argue that there's already pressure on chinese industry on account of recent cost increases. an appreciating renminbi and higher wages are responses to forces which vietnam, among other neighbors, has not had to contend with.

you're absolutely right that the US retailers will seek to maintain the price of goods on the shelf. can chinese factories maintain a competitive price?

And I have seen the groundwork laid for a decade that would eventually result in China owning a distribution chain within the US. You are correct they may have to open themselves up to public trading, but they will do that in China in renminbi when they do.

I am anticipating an attempt by China to snap up large positions within American retail giants like Target, or perhaps the wall mart chain. I expect a sort of retail crunch here this year and that may be the window of opportunity.

it would be interesting to see such a scenario roll out with chinese in retail. i dont see much in the way of progress even into wholesaling at this juncture. perhaps this could be an emerging change of tack. the sort of changes characteristic of the winners in a recession, perhaps? could happen any time. there's chinese PE funds looking to buy up european footy teams, maybe there are some with the guts and wherewithal to prance to the forefront of big-league retail. at the moment, international retailers are invading china's eastern seaboard. maybe they could impress on the home turf themselves. (maybe they are?)

back to the trade war/trade alliance deal we'd discussed some time earlier, i dont see china as being hostile to the US. for this reason, we're not all that hostile to them. what you may have discounted is how difficult it is to match the US capacity for QE. this is like a staring match against a seasoned world champ in the US/Fed. china has to match the US and the fully floating market to maintain that peg. it is costing them a lot of opportunity to invest in their nation and its businesses. in this way, i guess the chinese government is willing to take treasury bond margins in exchange for growth too.

 

[antagon]

and it's population is only 25% utilized so far.

this is a problem for china, not a virtue in the short term.

It is both. I definitely think it renders useless any argument that their workforce is too small as a % of pop.

that was a useless argument from the start, i'd say. it is an awkward leap from 25% to semi-developed, say 35-40%, especially at their approach speed. without a doubt this hurdle will be traversed, i just think a hiccup in their economy will set it back a decade or better.

 

[loosecannon]

in this way, i guess the chinese government is willing to take treasury bond margins in exchange for growth too.

I hope you realize that this strategy is just the first phase.

Once they reach sufficient critical mass China will be glad to drop the peg, let the dollar fall into the abyss and let their wages, money and real estate soar. At which point they can begin funding much of their own economic growth by consuming their own products developing a service sector to match and developing post manufacturing industries like finance etc.

I dunno how long this will all take but if they began with a 30 year plan I think they are halfway there.

China won't buy a majority stake in US retailing for quite a while. They will more likely buy a 20-30% stake in a cash strapped chain like Target, retaining Target's talent while adding them product line advantages. Then they will begin scaling back those advatages to other retail chains as they make progress into retail.

All in much the same way that they are scaling back world access to rare earth metals today. Selectively, as if to leverage which competitors they crush now and which they save for later.

Everything I observe about China reinforces that they are cutthroat monopolists. Maybe that's my bias, maybe I see them clearly.

That's what I see, and I see 20 examples every day reinforcing my pov.