News Australia predicts China passes US by 2015

[The Smoking Man]

Source: China boom sets our course

AUSTRALIA'S economy is set to ride a wave of prosperity enjoyed by China, which is about to overtake the US as the driving force of the world's economic growth.

China's massive economy is expected to expand by more than 10 per cent over the next decade, the biggest economic expansion the world has seen.

Its already phenomenal growth will increase to even higher levels as market reforms, high savings and a vast pool of surplus labour combine.

The China-led boom in demand and prices for a broad sweep of commodities underpinned a 90 per cent profit increase reported yesterday by BHP Billiton for the year to June.

The company's profit of $8.51 billion smashed the previous record in Australia, also held by the resources giant.

BHP chief executive Chip Goodyear said China was now the company's biggest customer, overtaking Japan.

He believed China would "remain a large and sustainable consumer of raw materials and resources over the coming decades".

...

For 25 years, China has averaged growth of 9.5 per cent a year, easily the highest in the world, and increased its share of global output from 3.2 to 13.6 per cent. If the forecasts are right, it will overtake the US within a decade to become the world's biggest economy.

Mr Huang said China still has up to 250 million surplus workers in agriculture, and is already investing 45 per cent of its GDP (compared to 25 per cent in Australia). But he said that could rise even higher, as it gradually shifts from investing in low-yield US Treasury bonds to more rewarding investments at home.

CHINA GROWTH ENGINE OF THE WORLD

China's output
1980: $US420bn ($A556 bn)
2005: $US8092bn.
China is now the world's second-largest economy, twice the size of Japan.

China as per cent of world output
1980: 3.2%
2005: 13.6%
Last year China generated a quarter of the world's economic growth, more than the US.

China's average growth rate
1980-2005: 9.5%.
2005-15: (forecast) 10%-plus.
On current trends, China will over take the US by 2015 to become the world's largest economy.

Australian exports to China/Hong Kong
1982-83: $983 million.
2004-05: $15,672 million.
One in every eight export dollars we earn comes from China and revenue is growing at 24 per cent a year.

 

[Townsend]

Good...I wish China was already the worlds biggest economy.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Good...I wish China was already the worlds biggest economy.

Keep voting republican then.

Four more wars! ... Four more Wars! ... Should just about bankrupt you.

 

[Townsend]

Keep voting republican then.

Four more wars! ... Four more Wars! ... Should just about bankrupt you.

Good...then all that wealth in China will disappear and it will send the world in a massive economic recession. Of course since China will have the worlds biggest GDP it will be up them to pay for the recovery and growth of the US economy. It would be nice to have someone else work to pay taxes and help me out for once. I could buy a new car and put a down payment on a house for all the money I have paid in taxes so far...of course now that I am a full time student I could use some free money too. Too bad I managed to keep a savings account for my college years...

Sorry if I cannot bring myself to vote for having my liberties and my money taken away in name of equality of result and democracy...not matter how hard I try I just cannot do it.

 

[Skyhunter]

Sorry if I cannot bring myself to vote for having my liberties and my money taken away in name of equality of result and democracy...not matter how hard I try I just cannot do it.

How does strengthening corporate rights protect your liberties?

If more liberty and less taxes is what you want you should vote libertarian.

 

[Skyhunter]

All the indicators point to China becoming the next world power.

Now I understand the strategy of using all the oil up as fast as we can to limit their access to cheap energy.

They don't waste their wealth on expensive military programs either. Instead they have cost effective counter measures to all our advanced weapon systems.

What will happen when they stop buying T-bills?

 

[DM]

Let's hope no further encumbrances emerge. Textile exports proved to be a massive blow for the Chinese.

 

[loseyourname]

With over a billion people, all that land mass, and one of the world's highest national IQs, it's about damn time.

 

[Lisa!]

With over a billion people, all that land mass, and one of the world's highest national IQs, it's about damn time.

Highest national IQ?

 

[loseyourname]

Highest national IQ?

. . . one of the . . . highest . . .

1234567890

 

[Lisa!]

That's great. So The Smoking Man should hold a party by now.

1234567890

Sorry I misread your post, but could you please tell me about the other countries with high IQs?

 

[Astronuc]

What will happen when they stop buying T-bills?

Interest rates will increase to attract capital.

Mortgage rates will increase - including adjustable rate mortgages, which will lead to 1) fewer people able to afford houses, which will cause 2) over-valued real estate prices to drop, and 3) more homes will go into foreclosure.

(The long term concern for #2 is that aggregate debt in the US could exceed the ability to pay the debt.)

Business profits will decrease as debt burden increases.

Unemployment will increase.

Perhaps a deflationary recession?

There is also a concern about further revaluation of the Yuan, which would have the same effect. If OPEC countries start sell oil in Euros instead of dollars, watch out!

Good reason to pull capital out of the US, which some folk have been doing quietly for a while.

 

[HiPPiE]

Very interesting! Does anyone have the corresponding US statistics to those for China?

Sorry if I cannot bring myself to vote for having my liberties and my money taken away in name of equality of result and democracy...not matter how hard I try I just cannot do it.

Not your liberties... maybe more of your money though. Believe it or not, however, opposing systems actually wouldn't take your money and burn it, or run off to Patagonia with it. They'd redistribute it, use it for the general public, social works, etc. They'd have more control of economic dealings in the country, but I don't know why that would bother anyone, given we can vote and make sure the money is used in good ways, but oh well, that's the basic ideology conflict.

By the way, China is still officially communist, although I admit they've pulled back an enormous amount. I think they do make the point that individualist economy with a lot of freedom to exploit, speculate, etc. is not good on the long term, while a more general, national outlook is ultimately profitable.

 

[Astronuc]

China is still officially communist

Officially yes, but I am not sure what that means.

It would seem China is more like a large corporation, and the Communist Party is the management team, and the highest level officials are like the Board of Directors.

Well, that also seems like the old Imperial order, but the Emperor is replaced by the Chairman of the Communist Party. That doesn't seem like anything like 'communism' as Marx or others envisioned it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Let's hope no further encumbrances emerge. Textile exports proved to be a massive blow for the Chinese.

I'm not sure if people are understanding what is going on here.

Maybe this article will http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050825/wl_asia_afp/chinaeutradetextilesclothing :

BEIJING (AFP) - Negotiations between the European Union and China over Beijing's booming textile exports are got under way, delegates to the talks said.

"They (the negotiators) are basically trying to discuss strategies on dealing with the situation of blocked goods in Europe," an EU delegation spokesman told AFP.

"They are exchanging ideas and information on possible strategies of dealing with the situation of blocked goods in Europe."

No time limits on the talks had been set and discussions could carry over into Friday, if necessary, he said.

The EU is under fierce pressure from fashion importers and European retailers to review quotas agreed with China in June after seven out of 10 textile categories covered by the import restrictions were filled.

Millions of dollars in clothing items shipped to Europe in excess of their quotas have been blocked by customs officials -- to the anger of European retailers anxious to fill their shelves ahead of the winter season.

This includes some 48 million sweaters, 17 million pairs of trousers and nearly 500,000 blouses, according to the latest figures cited by the French trade ministry.

In addition to this, 1.6 million T-shirts, 3.4 million bras and 1,470 tonnes of flax yarn are also being kept back because they exceed the quotas.

"We now need a pragmatic solution that deals with the immediate overshoot and with goodwill on all sides, we can do this," EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson said in a statement issued in Brussels.

It is not the Chinese who are suffering. It is the people who have IMPORTED the goods. It is up to an importer to ensure the goods they order are 'cleared'.

(And yes that is the same Peter Mendelson responsible for the 'Dodgy Dossier' in the UK)

 

[Townsend]

How does strengthening corporate rights protect your liberties?

If more liberty and less taxes is what you want you should vote libertarian.

You people...no matter what I say the liberals on PF are content to make stupid assumptions so I might as well not say anything at all...

You just let me know what I say and do for me and then you can go ahead and tell me what I need to do and what is wrong with my arguments...ok

 

[Skyhunter]

You people...no matter what I say the liberals on PF are content to make stupid assumptions so I might as well not say anything at all...

You just let me know what I say and do for me and then you can go ahead and tell me what I need to do and what is wrong with my arguments...ok

Since you are the only constant in the equation, perhaps it is what you say not how we interpret it.

I was simply inferring that voting Republican was voting to strengthen corporate rights. Not suggesting that is what you meant.

Sorry if I cannot bring myself to vote for having my liberties and my money taken away in name of equality of result and democracy...not matter how hard I try I just cannot do it.

And from this statement you seem to be most concerned with personal liberty and less taxes, which are the major themes of the Libertarian party.

I don't know if you vote Republican or not, I was just responding to what you wrote.

 

[Smurf]

Mortgage rates will increase - including adjustable rate mortgages, which will lead to 1) fewer people able to afford houses, which will cause 2) over-valued real estate prices to drop, and 3) more homes will go into foreclosure.

Short-Term wise this might seem like a good thing due to the spike of real estate prices because of the Home-Improvement fab recently (at least in Canada it is)

 

[Townsend]

I was simply inferring that voting Republican was voting to strengthen corporate rights. Not suggesting that is what you meant.

Don't try and backpedal dude...You were not merely responding to what I said you were in fact suggesting that I was going to vote republican. If you did not make any assumptions then what the hell are you doing telling me to vote libertarian when based on what I said I think it is pretty clear that I plan on doing just that. It is like If I told you, you should vote democratic...

 

[The Smoking Man]

Don't try and backpedal dude...You were not merely responding to what I said you were in fact suggesting that I was going to vote republican. If you did not make any assumptions then what the hell are you doing telling me to vote libertarian when based on what I said I think it is pretty clear that I plan on doing just that. It is like If I told you, you should vote democratic...

Did I just walk into a Monty Python Sketch?

Reduced to it's bare essentials this debate just got reduced to ...

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.

Townsend, do you truly understand, ad hominem?

 

[Townsend]

Did I just walk into a Monty Python Sketch?

Reduced to it's bare essentials this debate just got reduced to ...

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.

Townsend, do you truly understand, ad hominem?

What is clear here is that you do not...

 

[The Smoking Man]

You people...no matter what I say the liberals on PF are content to make stupid assumptions so I might as well not say anything at all...

You just let me know what I say and do for me and then you can go ahead and tell me what I need to do and what is wrong with my arguments...ok

Chances are, when that many flies observe the steaming pile ... their assessment is usually correct.

 

[Townsend]

Chances are, when that many flies observe the steaming pile ... their assessment is usually correct.

So since Bush won the election he must have been the best choice? I mean, that is the logic you are employing here...or are you capable of understanding the concept of analogous relationships?

If anyone here is making a logical fallacy it is you can it is called argumentum ad populum. And after what you just said there really is no way out of it...

 

[Skyhunter]

Keep voting republican then.

Four more wars! ... Four more Wars! ... Should just about bankrupt you.

Sorry if I cannot bring myself to vote for having my liberties and my money taken away in name of equality of result and democracy...not matter how hard I try I just cannot do it.

Ok from this exchange I assumed you were going to vote republican. I admit I made an erroneous assumption.

Since you didn't state otherwise though can you see where one might assume that?

And from your argument I thought you should vote Libertarian, not knowing any better I wanted to suggest it to you.

 

[The Smoking Man]

So since Bush won the election he must have been the best choice? I mean, that is the logic you are employing here...or are you capable of understanding the concept of analogous relationships?

If anyone here is making a logical fallacy it is you can it is called argumentum ad populum. And after what you just said there really is no way out of it...

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - Freud

If you believe you are capable of expressing your thoughts clearly and concisely, how is it that every few posts you condemn all the other posters in general for their inability to understand what you meant?

So ... I guess it is you who keeps expressing the argumentum ad populum and I was just expressing an alternate perception.

eg.

You people...no matter what I say the liberals on PF are content to make stupid assumptions so I might as well not say anything at all...

You just let me know what I say and do for me and then you can go ahead and tell me what I need to do and what is wrong with my arguments...ok

 

[Townsend]

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - Freud

If you believe you are capable of expressing your thoughts clearly and concisely, how is it that every few posts you condemn all the other posters in general for their inability to understand what you meant?

So ... I guess it is you who keeps expressing the argumentum ad populum and I was just expressing an alternate perception.

eg.

you make as much sense as a soup sandwich...there is no way I made an any kind of appeal to such a logical fallacy and you CLEARLY and undeniably did just that. Face it dude...you were schooled!

 

[The Smoking Man]

you make as much sense as a soup sandwich...there is no way I made an any kind of appeal to such a logical fallacy and you CLEARLY and undeniably did just that. Face it dude...you were schooled!

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

 

[Townsend]

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

I don't say so, the defintion of the fallacy argumentum ad populum says so.

In logic, an appeal to belief (also called the appeal to the majority or the argumentum ad populum) is a logical fallacy that is committed when someone asserts that a proposition should be held to be true, or more plausible, merely because it is widely believed.

Which is precisely what the following is:

Chances are, when that many flies observe the steaming pile ... their assessment is usually correct.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't say so, the defintion of the fallacy argumentum ad populum says so.



Which is precisely what the following is:

So who are you arguing with now Townsend?

 

[Townsend]

So who are you arguing with now Townsend?

I am explaining something to you that you seem to be either unable to understand or unwilling to accept ...that is not what I would call an argument, TSM, would you?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I am explaining something to you that you seem to be either unable to understand or unwilling to accept ...that is not what I would call an argument, TSM, would you?

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

 

[Townsend]

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

I don't say so and it is not my logic, it is the definition and I am only showing you how it applies to what you said...why don't quit acting like a kid and stop saying "I bow to your logic." When you know full well that that statement is in it self a ridiculous statement and makes no sense. Or perhaps you don't realize that and I have been giving to far too much credit...

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't say so and it is not my logic, it is the definition and I am only showing you how it applies to what you said...why don't quit acting like a kid and stop saying "I bow to your logic." When you know full well that that statement is in it self a ridiculous statement and makes no sense. Or perhaps you don't realize that and I have been giving to far too much credit...

So who are you arguing with now Townsend?

 

[Townsend]

So who are you arguing with now Townsend?

No one...I am have just made the mistake of wasting my time trying to explain a simple concept to a broken record.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No one...I am have just made the mistake of wasting my time trying to explain a simple concept to a broken record.

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

 

[Townsend]

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

If that is so then why don't shut up already... You're worse than a 4 year old

You are in no way even remotely funny...

 

[The Smoking Man]

If that is so then why don't shut up already... You're worse than a 4 year old

You are in no way even remotely funny...

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

 

[Skyhunter]

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

touche'

 

[Kakarot]

w00t for china, now we will be planning our vacations in china

 

[Friendly Immigrant]

Sorry I misread your post, but could you please tell me about the other countries with high IQs?

National IQ averages of every country in the world: http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

China is two points above U.S.A., but some 6 points below Japan and the Koreas. CNN and Fox News are helping make Americans stupid. Say no to the Neo-Conservative/Liberal monopoly.

 

[Townsend]

National IQ averages of every country in the world: http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp

China is two points above U.S.A., but some 6 points below Japan and the Koreas. CNN and Fox News are helping make Americans stupid. Say no to the Neo-Conservative/Liberal monopoly.

While I agree with saying no to both the repubs and the dems I cannot for the life me see how a news station can really have an impact on anyone's IQ let alone on the national average IQ.

 

[The Smoking Man]

While I agree with saying no to both the repubs and the dems I cannot for the life me see how a news station can really have an impact on anyone's IQ let alone on the national average IQ.

Hence the need for a tongue-in-cheek smiley.

 

[Skyhunter]

While I agree with saying no to both the repubs and the dems I cannot for the life me see how a news station can really have an impact on anyone's IQ let alone on the national average IQ.

IQ tests are designed to test intelligence. However the more knowledge a person has, the better they will score. My IQ scores (based on the Iowa basics) increased every test I took.

I think it has more to do with the culture of intellectual laziness. People just believe what the read/hear without making an effort to be critical and question the information they are given and find out what the whole story is.

Here is a good example of a smear campaign using disinformation.

take responsibility partly for my son’s death, too. I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bull**** to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: “This country is not worth dying for. If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it. But we were not attacked by Iraq. {applause} We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden if {applause}. 9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant. {applause}

Now the country she said was not worth dying for was Iraq.

Now do this google search: Cindy Sheehan fox "America is not worth dying for"

And see how her statement has been taken out of context by FOX news so that now the right wing bloggers and radio are quoting her as saying, "America is not worth dying for".

This is just the most recent example of disinformation, and it happens on the left as well. I just got back from a red state and 4 out of 5 people there believe that she was talking about America, when obviously when you read the whole statement in context, that is not what she was saying.

I am used to this tactic in political campaigns, but when it is coming from a supposedly objective "news" source well do I really need to spell it out?

Ok I will... pee are oh pee ay gee ay en dee ay

 

[Townsend]

pee are oh pee ay gee ay en dee ay

Am I suppose to know what the last line means?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Am I suppose to know what the last line means?

Try saying it out loud

 

[kat]

9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through and, if I would have known that before my son was killed, I would have taken him to Canada. I would never have let him go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant

good example of leftist propaganda. She was going to take him to Canada to prevent him for volunteering to fight in Iraq..twice..and then further volunteering...even when asked whether he was sure he wanted to...volunteering to go on the mission that killed him.
Why is she paralleling her sons volunteer actions in something he believed in with the vietnam war when people were beating the draft by going to Canada? Nice bit of propoganda at your sons expense there mz sheehan.

 

[Townsend]

Try saying it out loud

What were you saying about the tongue in cheek smiley?

 

[Archon]

good example of leftist propaganda. She was going to take him to Canada to prevent him for volunteering to fight in Iraq..twice..and then further volunteering...even when asked whether he was sure he wanted to...volunteering to go on the mission that killed him.
Why is she paralleling her sons volunteer actions in something he believed in with the vietnam war when people were beating the draft by going to Canada? Nice bit of propoganda at your sons expense there mz sheehan.

Propaganda? I don't follow.

She's saying that she would have taken her son to Canada had she known what she knows now about the war in Iraq. This isn't the same as the government deliberately spinning and manipulating facts to convince people of something. She's just expressing an opinion.

Presumably, her son didn't know this either when he enlisted, or the two of them would now be in Canada. So yes, he believed in the cause when he signed up to fight. But that's not what she's talking about: she's saying that if she had known (and this applies to a lot of soldiers), she wouldn't have supported the war. After all, many soldiers signed up because Hussein posed a threat to the United States, and because he had weapons of mass destruction, right? Neither of these were the case.

Also, something tells that she wasn't making some subtle comparison to Vietnam when she said that she would have taken her son to Canada.

 

[Archon]

What were you saying about the tongue in cheek smiley?

p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a. See?

 

[kat]

Propaganda? I don't follow.

She's saying that she would have taken her son to Canada had she known what she knows now about the war in Iraq. This isn't the same as the government deliberately spinning and manipulating facts to convince people of something. She's just expressing an opinion.

Presumably, her son didn't know this either when he enlisted, or the two of them would now be in Canada. So yes, he believed in the cause when he signed up to fight. But that's not what she's talking about: she's saying that if she had known (and this applies to a lot of soldiers), she wouldn't have supported the war. After all, many soldiers signed up because Hussein posed a threat to the United States, and because he had weapons of mass destruction, right? Neither of these were the case.

Also, something tells that she wasn't making some subtle comparison to Vietnam when she said that she would have taken her son to Canada.

lol, she is manipulating the facts. She's suggesting her grown son would not have re-enlisted to fight in Iraq...a second time had she known what she "knows now". Sorry, but her son..went to Iraq once, chose to go twice and then CHOSE to volunteer for a very risky mission, even after being asked if he was sure he wanted to. Her political outlook hasn't changed based on her sons death, it's always been exactly where it is now. She's not new to the side that she's speaking for. Is there any proof that she...ever supported the war, lol