Who will Emerge as the World's Next Great Industrial Nation?

[HARK!]

China's Collapse Just Got So Much WORSE...

 

[Estrid]

It looks to me as if some of you are finding
pleasure and satisfaction from any problems China
is having.
We are just people who want to live our lives, like you do.
For most of our history its been impossible, much like
in Europe with endless wars among small states, and
cruel oppression.
It is very difficult to govern Chjna, being made up of
differing ethnicities and languages despite all we have
in common. Those differences go back many years- look
how the USA split into warring factions in a lifetime!
And the half million dead to " heal" the rift.

Of course some draconian measures are needed to
hold China together, and a strong military to keep foreign
gunboats out of our rivers!

And of course nobody has the ideal society and economic
system.

Seems tho you can lift yourselves without putting others down.

 

[HARK!]

It looks to me as if some of you are finding
pleasure and satisfaction from any problems China
is having.
We are just people who want to live our lives, like you do.
For most of our history its been impossible, much like
in Europe with endless wars among small states, and
cruel oppression.
It is very difficult to govern Chjna, being made up of
differing ethnicities and languages despite all we have
in common. Those differences go back many years- look
how the USA split into warring factions in a lifetime!
And the half million dead to " heal" the rift.

Of course some draconian measures are needed to
hold China together, and a strong military to keep foreign
gunboats out of our rivers!

And of course nobody has the ideal society and economic
system.

Seems tho you can lift yourselves without putting others down.

I apologize if I created the impression that I find some pleasure with what is going on in China. It's very troubling for me; as the U.S. relies heavily on China for goods. What is happening in China will affect the economy of the entire world.

My mother mastered kung-fu under a Shifu, a Doctor of Chinese medicine, a Priest, a pillar of the Chinese community here in the U.S.. Politics aside, I have a great love and respect for the Chinese people.

 

[Estrid]

I apologize if I created the impression that I find some pleasure with what is going on in China. It's very troubling for me; as the U.S. relies heavily on China for goods. What is happening in China will affect the economy of the entire world.

My mother mastered kung-fu under a Shifu, a Doctor of Chinese medicine, a Priest, a pillar of the Chinese community here in the U.S.. Politics aside, I have a great love and respect for the Chinese people.

Im glad to hear that.
I know I am a bit touchy, and some
do display a lot of anti Asian feelings.

 

[trophy33]

some
do display a lot of anti Asian feelings.

You probably mean anti communist feelings. I have never saw anybody to say something against South Korea, Japan, Tchaj-wan, Singapur etc.

Against North Korea and China? Sure, but thats because of the totalitarianism. Thats the danger for the free world, not the common people who just want to live and let live.

 

[Estrid]

You probably mean anti communist feelings. I have never saw anybody to say something against South Korea, Japan, Tchaj-wan, Singapur etc.

Against North Korea and China? Sure, but thats because of the totalitarianism. Thats the danger for the free world, not the common people who just want to live and let live.

Are you Asian?
If not you could go through life and not
encounter anti Asian behaviour.

My first day at Uni in NYC, someone wrote
" Chink" on my dorm door.

 

[trophy33]

Are you Asian?
If not you could go through life and not
encounter anti Asian behaviour.

My first day at Uni in NYC, someone wrote
" Chink" on my dorm door.

Any nationality can meet such behavior when living in another country, thats nothing special to Asians or Chinese only.

Its even common inside one country, when people from different regions or even just different villages meet. Not to say different social classes etc. Virtually anybody can be harrassed by somebody because of some difference.

 

[Estrid]

Any nationality can meet such behavior when living in another country, thats nothing special to Asians or Chinese only.

Its even common inside one country, when people from different regions or even just different villages meet. Not to say different social classes etc. Virtually anybody can be harrassed by somebody because of some difference.

True.
Just wondered what was with this thread.

 

[RDKirk]

Any nationality can meet such behavior when living in another country, thats nothing special to Asians or Chinese only.

Its even common inside one country, when people from different regions or even just different villages meet. Not to say different social classes etc. Virtually anybody can be harrassed by somebody because of some difference.

That's what my kids experienced in school when I brought them back from overseas. Having been military kids, they had had a much broader early experience than the other kids. They both suffered from being considered "bougie" by the black kids at their schools, because being "hood" (or any semblance of accepting "hood") hadn't been their lives. We hadn't taught them that was supposed to be their culture.

 

[trophy33]

That's what my kids experienced in school when I brought them back from overseas. Having been military kids, they had had a much broader early experience than the other kids. They both suffered from being considered "bougie" by the black kids at their schools, because being "hood" (or any semblance of accepting "hood") hadn't been their lives. We hadn't taught them that was supposed to be their culture.

I do not have children, but from time to time there is some article in my country that child with for example different phone brand than what the majority of children in class has, is being excluded from the group or harassed.

I know a girl that was beaten in school because she went regularly to church with parents, but other children in the class did not go to church.

Children with glasses are being harassed, overweight, too slim, too small, too tall, too dark, too light, even the color of hair (for example ginger) can be the reason.

If somebody thinks that society is just against him and others have everything easy, let him think twice.

 

[Gene2memE]

I would not call that a "redistribution of wealth." That phrase implies a pie of fixed size, a zero-sum game.

I would, and no it doesn't.

In 1930, US GDP (in 2021 dollars) was just over $1.1 trillion. The top 1% of households earned ~22-26% of this (depending on just how you measure it), producing somewhere about $240-290 billion of wealth per annum.

By 1945, US GDP was just over $2.3 trillion. The top 1% of households earned somewhere around- 9-13% of this. So, they earned about $210-290 billion per annum.

At most, you could say they broke even.

There are a bunch of reasons for this - poor investment market performance, the US overproduction crisis, the banking failures, high corporate bankruptcy rates. But one of the key reasons was new taxes.

In particular, the 1935 and 1937 personal tax changes (the 'Wealth Tax'), a bunch of corporate tax changes and the introduction of payroll taxes. Between 1930 and 1945, tax went from ~4% of GDP to just under 20% of GDP and the top 1% started to pay vastly more in terms of taxation.

That wealth was redistributed from the wealthy to the US government. And, given the vast increase in US government spending, it was then distributed into the hands of the middle class.

In the post-war period, the pie itself grew enormously. Everybody got richer, although the wealthiest 1% got richer at a lower rate than those of lesser incomes.

For part of it, yes. For some parts, no. Incomes grew generally, but the incomes of the top 1% were more variable than that of the wider population (at least until the end of the 1970s).

Total wealth of the top 1% fell in the years immediately after WW2. In absolute terms, it didn't really start to pick up again until 1950/1951 - when changes to corporate taxes started to drop the effective tax rate.

Even then, it sort of bumps along at 10-12% of income for all of the 1950s and 1960s - but is growing in absolute terms. However, there was another decline at the end of the 1960s/beginning of the 1970s.

The overall pie certainly did get larger. US real GDP doubled between 1939 and 1945 (then shrank 15%). Then doubled again in the 18 years between 1950 and 1967. Then doubled again in the 20 years to 1987, then doubled again in the 30 years to 2017.

 

[Estrid]

I would, and no it doesn't.

In 1930, US GDP (in 2021 dollars) was just over $1.1 trillion. The top 1% of households earned ~22-26% of this (depending on just how you measure it), producing somewhere about $240-290 billion of wealth per annum.

By 1945, US GDP was just over $2.3 trillion. The top 1% of households earned somewhere around- 9-13% of this. So, they earned about $210-290 billion per annum.

At most, you could say they broke even.

There are a bunch of reasons for this - poor investment market performance, the US overproduction crisis, the banking failures, high corporate bankruptcy rates. But one of the key reasons was new taxes.

In particular, the 1935 and 1937 personal tax changes (the 'Wealth Tax'), a bunch of corporate tax changes and the introduction of payroll taxes. Between 1930 and 1945, tax went from ~4% of GDP to just under 20% of GDP and the top 1% started to pay vastly more in terms of taxation.

That wealth was redistributed from the wealthy to the US government. And, given the vast increase in US government spending, it was then distributed into the hands of the middle class.



For part of it, yes. For some parts, no. Incomes grew generally, but the incomes of the top 1% were more variable than that of the wider population (at least until the end of the 1970s).

Total wealth of the top 1% fell in the years immediately after WW2. In absolute terms, it didn't really start to pick up again until 1950/1951 - when changes to corporate taxes started to drop the effective tax rate.

Even then, it sort of bumps along at 10-12% of income for all of the 1950s and 1960s - but is growing in absolute terms. However, there was another decline at the end of the 1960s/beginning of the 1970s.

The overall pie certainly did get larger. US real GDP doubled between 1939 and 1945 (then shrank 15%). Then doubled again in the 18 years between 1950 and 1967. Then doubled again in the 20 years to 1987, then doubled again in the 30 years to 2017.

Low interest rates are key to making it
easy for "the rich" to get richer, faster and faster.

 

[inquiring mind]

China's housing bubble is already beginning to burst. Should this happen (and it would seem inevitable) ;this commentator explains how this will cause a chain reaction that will cripple China as a industrial nation. Who will fill the void? How will this impact the world economy, and for how long? It seems that there is trouble ahead, but also great opportunity. Will Walmart survive this transition?

I think it will be some Central American alliance. Their poor, destitute and disenfranchised (some rumor of prisons there being emptied as well) are coming to the U.S. in hordes. This will eventually leave only the wealthy and well-off for future entrepreneurship, and the better-off for labor. Probably a nice set-up for them in a decade or so, and who knows Trump may end up right about the U.S. not paying for the wall. They may finish it to keep out any poor and unproductive returnees that would be a drain on their new wealthy economies and middle class.