furymonkey
New Member
I think you have mis-understood s002wjh's message , what he meant is neither Japan, SK and US can afford a country in such a bad shape.
The keyword is "nor".
Chinese Invasion of N. Korea
The keyword is "nor".
I said excess of $730 billion in debt. Now if you know english you know what excess means. If America is so rich then why are they so in debt then, huh? The have high GDP cause they keep on borrowing and loaning money. But when world economy collaspe, in times of war, lets see who has more money to burn in their account balance. GDP what as a nation or per person. Per person its definatly not the wealthiest. Of course China per head is poorer then US, they have way more people. And they only started to understand economy and reform in the past so decade while Western nations have had more time to develop. But Im still giving credit to America for being such a strong economy but Japan, Russia and China are not weakling either. The matter is Japan, Russia, China still have a large margin between them and America in their account balance. Look at the military budget of America, completly waste of money and unessary. Even half of that is more then enough.
Smart thing about America is that their financial structure is linked to other nations, so if America falls others will fall to. So this is some smart financial structuring.
The point is EU and Australia are now looking towards China rather then US for trading exports and imports.
Just to throw with numbers: The costs of the German reunification were estimated to be as high as 1.5 trillion € (in 2004). Exact figures are not known, the direct costs are sometimes given as 171.7 billion €, which is only a small fraction of the total costs. And still there are huge amounts of money transfered each year from west to east in order to further develop the region, although the standards have almost reached western Germany.
As for relation, 1.5 trillion € is about the amount of debt Germany has, the private property in Germany accounts for about 5.4 trillion € (very comfortable situation), the GDP is 2.489 trillion € (2008).
Are there any estimates how expensive a Korean reunification would be?
As for relation, 1.5 trillion € is about the amount of debt Germany has, the private property in Germany accounts for about 5.4 trillion € (very comfortable situation), the GDP is 2.489 trillion € (2008).
Are there any estimates how expensive a Korean reunification would be?
Please, I suggest you follow swerve's suggestion and learn some economics. Your reasoning is so flawed, it doesn't even make sense to argue.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
After reading the last days posts, I would respectfully suggest that you all refrain from posting from economic matters and stick with Military
It isn't really possible to discuss the topic of this thread without reference to economics.After reading the last days posts, I would respectfully suggest that you all refrain from posting from economic matters and stick with Military
To bring swerve's "scale" into it:
The USA is currently #22 worldwide (out of 126 with published data) in public-debt-to-GDP ratio, although taken with more current numbers it will rise to #20 at least, surpassing Canada and Germany, and probably settle in the region between France (67%) and Hungary (74%) around #17.
US Public debt for that purpose as of 09/2005 was 8 trillion, 09/2007 9 trillion, as of 09/2008 10 trillion, and as of 03/2009 11 trillion. Note geometric progression to half the time on each jump.
please enlighten me with some information then. not trying to start debate but please enlighten me if you think, me reasoning is so flawed.
As this is clear OT I suggest you PM me if you have specific questions. Just a few points, as swerve and Ozzy Blizzard pointed you to the right direction already:
I don't know what definition of wealth or being rich you're referring to, but neither Russia nor China are "rich" countries compared to the EU or the US. Debt or account surplusses are misleading and far too simple indicators in this respect.
See, this is pointless, you'd have to write a dozen books to explain everything.
I don't know what definition of wealth or being rich you're referring to, but neither Russia nor China are "rich" countries compared to the EU or the US. Debt or account surplusses are misleading and far too simple indicators in this respect.
See, this is pointless, you'd have to write a dozen books to explain everything.
And this is simply wrong. Yes, Asia is getting more important as wealth spreads throughout the region. But if you'd have a look at trade figures you'd see that your claim is not true. Germany for example as biggest export country in the EU had an export volume of more than 73 billion € with the US and about 30 billion € with China in 2007.
erm, has to be seen on the whole. On the whole, China is the EU's biggest import partner, and the EU is China's biggest export partner.
If one looks at export per continent, America is only #4 in Germany's export list btw. #1 is of course the EU, #2 is Asia, #3 is non-EU Europe - with #2, 3 and 4 very close together (Africa and Oceania/Australia are negligible, 2.5% together). Asia is about one-tenth ahead of America.
If one looks at export per continent, America is only #4 in Germany's export list btw. #1 is of course the EU, #2 is Asia, #3 is non-EU Europe - with #2, 3 and 4 very close together (Africa and Oceania/Australia are negligible, 2.5% together). Asia is about one-tenth ahead of America.
Other figures, another matter. Which doesn't change the fact that the exports to the US are about 150% higher than those to China.
And the USA remains the most important trade partner for the EU with 355 billion $ of exports and 247,34 billion $ of imports (as of 2007).
As far as the imports are concerned, well you know the "prolongued workbench" stuff. Don't get me started.
And the USA remains the most important trade partner for the EU with 355 billion $ of exports and 247,34 billion $ of imports (as of 2007).
As far as the imports are concerned, well you know the "prolongued workbench" stuff. Don't get me started.
Last edited:
Sampanviking
Banned Member
Unbelievable!
People are talking about the current crisis as if it was a vicars teaparty!
Where to start:
1) Reunification would be a matter of perception as the entire peninsular would be in ruins and the "victors" actually the forces of the regional supporters.
2) Extensive damage throughout the region (assuming very optomistically that the conflict could be contained within the region)
3) The Destiny of some "major powers" altered permenatly
4) The Balance of Geopolitical Power changed dramatically
5) The Global economy crashed
and this is just the optomistic outlook as the potential exists to be far far worse.
My opinion? just let the bloody rocket fly!
People are talking about the current crisis as if it was a vicars teaparty!
Where to start:
1) Reunification would be a matter of perception as the entire peninsular would be in ruins and the "victors" actually the forces of the regional supporters.
2) Extensive damage throughout the region (assuming very optomistically that the conflict could be contained within the region)
3) The Destiny of some "major powers" altered permenatly
4) The Balance of Geopolitical Power changed dramatically
5) The Global economy crashed
and this is just the optomistic outlook as the potential exists to be far far worse.
My opinion? just let the bloody rocket fly!
Why would the global economy crash? and why do you think the conflict would escalate? The DPRK has no major supporters that would be willing to go to war for it. And how would there be extensive damage throughout the region? The DPRK can hardly reach over to hit Japan, never mind the rest of the region.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
Feanor, seriously, where do you get this notion from
What makes you think that the Strategic Line up on the Peninsular today is any different from that of 50 years ago? Its not about liking or disliking Kim, but basic Geopoliticla reality
Western forces on the borders of Manchuria and Russia's Far East are as unacceptable to China and Russia now as they were then. Everybody is working to stabilise the situation and make sure that no major incidents occur, but the moment somethign does happen and the guns open on the DMZ, everybody involved will switch from Peacemaking to War Winning immediatly.
Everybody wants this situation resolved but on their own terms and not anybody elses - its the only real issue in which all six parties are agreed.
Do you honestly think modern day Russia, with it's hydro-carbon and near-abroad driven foreign policy is all that concerned over the DPRK? I suspect that in case of a war China would help subdue the DPRK regime, and occupy the territory themselves to prevent the west from doing it. But most likely no war will happen in the first place because nobody stands to gain from it, and everyone stands to lose. Japan, the RoK, and the USA all haev similar terms for resolving it so there is no conflict between those three parties. Russia and China both would not like to see western influence, but I don't see Russian troops deployed there unless it's on an international peacekeeping mandate.
Which is why I can imagine that once the N. Korean army was beaten & ROK & allied troops marching north, China might send in troops (under strict orders not to fight the S. Koreans or Americans) to occupy the border regions & take the remaining N. Korean forces in the rear, loudly proclaiming that it was merely restoring order, had no hostile intent towards the ROK or its allies, & would, of course, withdraw the troops & hand over control to the Korean authorities when the situation stabilised - and using the occupied territory & the presence of its troops as a bargaining chip to negotiate the withdrawal of US troops, arguing that with the end of the N. Korean government there was no need for them.
China wants US troops out of Korea. It does not need to fight the USA, or prop up N. Korea, to do that. It props up N. Korea because it fears what could happen if it collapsed, & because it keeps US troops away from the Chinese border. If it could hand over N. Korea to the south, it would do it tomorrow - as long as the deal included the complete withdrawal of the USA from Korea. Think about ways to achieve that, without disaster for China. None of them that I can think of include fighting S. Korea & the USA.
A friendly, united, peaceful, lightly-armed (& why would it need vast armies once united, & with China being friendly? And how could it afford them, while paying the vast cost of rebuilding & integrating the North?) Korea with no foreign troops would be an absolutely perfect neighbour from the Chinese point of view. Why would China try to prevent it coming into being?
As for Russia - the border is of trivial length, and there already are Western forces on the maritime borders of the Russian Far East, so close to Russian territory that a small land border makes no real difference. Russia didn't go to war to stop Western forces being established on its European borders, which are many times more important, & far closer to its heartland.
autumn child
New Member
I agree that US is still the richest nation but i do not agree with your belitling of asian countries. Keep in mind that asian nations went through industrialization much faster than western countries.
Do not assume that all asian economies are the same. Japan's recession is due to its inability to reform itself and also low Entrepreneural spirit among its populace.
It is unlikely that China will be overwhelmed by social instability in these few decades. 20 million jobless is hardly a cause of concern in the short run. Govt have already begun to subsidize companies to absorp unemployments. Unemployed migrrant workers are opening businesses on their hometown and some also receive training course to increase their competativeness.
Big correction has occured in china many times these past few decades and yet the country proves more resilient than previously thought. There are no massive underground movement that can subtitute the goverments. These past decades China also prove to be able to reform itself and as long as continuous reforms occur in the future, china will still have bright future.
I am really puzzled about western fantasies about China breaking itself apart. How can you compare China in 1800's to China today? Do you even know the culture and history of China? If you are familiar with it, then you would also realize that China never breaks apart during its rise. Also keep in mind the unifying factor of chinese civilization. If you are familiar with these, then you also realize that the unifying factor is stronger than it ever was in the last centuries.
Sampanviking
Banned Member
To Feanor and Swerve and answered in the lost logical order I can .
How the do you think the Russian Govt views the current situation where a large and growing fleet of American, Japanese and South Korean Aegis Destroyers and Frigates, sporting their US supplied Anti Ballistic Missile systems, are sitting off its Eastern Coast, backed up with Land based systems on Japan and waiting to shoot down a North Korean Ballistic Missile for (one must suppose) the sole purpose of provoking this prickly little country into starting a war which if unopposed, would result in US occuaption of North Korea and the placement of not only US Land, Sea and Air forces close to the border, but plenty more Anti Missile Defence systems as well?
I also think China seeks a united Korea which is completely free of US influence and that means one unified under its own preferred proxy.
China also shares Russias concerns on encirclement and SDI, add to this the relative proximity of Beijing, Dalian and many other major Northern cities to North Korean territory, you can understand its concern and hard stance. The
very high profile given to the DPRK Premier on his visit to China last week to celebrate 60 years of DPRK and PRC friendship and the launch of the China/North Korea year of special friendship should send out an unambigeous signal.
Ultimately though if the rosy situation described by Swerve was a reality, then how would North Korea have been able to get away with its behaviour for so long? It is simply because it knows that any attempt to attack it would drag in all the regional players and so it trades on it.
What though makes it so dangerous is that nobody really has a clue what is happening inside the North Korean elite, especially with Kim such a sick man. The phrase Mutually Assured Destruction does have a place here althouigh not in its usuall Nuclear context, but in its basic meaning as the response to Assured Destruction. If factions inside North Korea are feeling threatened by a succession struggle or if indeed the regime is close to collapse, then they frankly have nothing to lose from a conflagration. This means that with Japan and others having foolishly made the threat to intercept and North Korea responding that the attempt and not even a succesful intercept would be a Casus Belli, a North Korean General only has to claim that an Interception was attempted (and defeated by our nations Glorious soldiers etc..) in order to justify opening fire.
Bearing in mind all the above, especially the lack of trust between the two sides, once fighting does erupt the only logical solution is to comprehensively take control of the peninsular and destroy the enemies ability to prevent it - sadly its a cold and simple as that.
The real danger is that such a conflict can easily spread to Central Asia and the Caucuses......
You dont think that North Korea constitutes the near abroad? Or to put it another way, what are the two main complaints Russia has against the West? Well, encirclement and SDI (or whatever Strategic Missile Defence is called today).
How the do you think the Russian Govt views the current situation where a large and growing fleet of American, Japanese and South Korean Aegis Destroyers and Frigates, sporting their US supplied Anti Ballistic Missile systems, are sitting off its Eastern Coast, backed up with Land based systems on Japan and waiting to shoot down a North Korean Ballistic Missile for (one must suppose) the sole purpose of provoking this prickly little country into starting a war which if unopposed, would result in US occuaption of North Korea and the placement of not only US Land, Sea and Air forces close to the border, but plenty more Anti Missile Defence systems as well?
But it is a border and right on the doorstep on the most strategically valuable part of its Far East Territory see also above and Feanors previous post.
In principle I agree, but if it were that simple in practice it would have happened years ago. Clearly there a significant lack of trust and that has implications for all possible scenarios. The fact that Emperor Hirohito surrendered sixty years ago, but US forces are still in Yokohama and Okinawa may have something to do with it.
I also think China seeks a united Korea which is completely free of US influence and that means one unified under its own preferred proxy.
China also shares Russias concerns on encirclement and SDI, add to this the relative proximity of Beijing, Dalian and many other major Northern cities to North Korean territory, you can understand its concern and hard stance. The
very high profile given to the DPRK Premier on his visit to China last week to celebrate 60 years of DPRK and PRC friendship and the launch of the China/North Korea year of special friendship should send out an unambigeous signal.
Ultimately though if the rosy situation described by Swerve was a reality, then how would North Korea have been able to get away with its behaviour for so long? It is simply because it knows that any attempt to attack it would drag in all the regional players and so it trades on it.
What though makes it so dangerous is that nobody really has a clue what is happening inside the North Korean elite, especially with Kim such a sick man. The phrase Mutually Assured Destruction does have a place here althouigh not in its usuall Nuclear context, but in its basic meaning as the response to Assured Destruction. If factions inside North Korea are feeling threatened by a succession struggle or if indeed the regime is close to collapse, then they frankly have nothing to lose from a conflagration. This means that with Japan and others having foolishly made the threat to intercept and North Korea responding that the attempt and not even a succesful intercept would be a Casus Belli, a North Korean General only has to claim that an Interception was attempted (and defeated by our nations Glorious soldiers etc..) in order to justify opening fire.
Bearing in mind all the above, especially the lack of trust between the two sides, once fighting does erupt the only logical solution is to comprehensively take control of the peninsular and destroy the enemies ability to prevent it - sadly its a cold and simple as that.
The real danger is that such a conflict can easily spread to Central Asia and the Caucuses......
Pre digital? Ever visited the country? Some SF movies are shot in cities like Shanghai to take advantage of the sci fi like cityscape this city and other cities are growing. If anything China appears over industrialized, and over digitized. They got an internet population larger than the entire population of the United States. They got a mobile phone user population larger than twice the entire population of the United States. They're the first country to use IPV6 simply because of the sheer volume of traffic. Whole districts in cities are marked as silicon valleys that are heavy in research for companies like Microsoft, IBM and GE; they gravitationally attract the best minds both locally and foreign in information technologies.
Rich is about having surplus. Having high deficits means negative capital growth, which means less capital
Newsflash Ozzy, China's growth is more than sustainable because it still has a lot of fuel from the pool of inexpensive labor. Japan and Asian tigers stopped growing because they exhausted their cheap labor quite fast, although they're growing again by exploiting cheap labor in surrounding nations. China's own pool can still last for decades, while a vast middle class is forming around cities and coastlines. Despite the problems of any export led country, they got decisive advantages in dealing with any economic crisis by the sheer fact they are sitting on enormous reserves---a city like Hong Kong alone is sitting well over 100 billion---and highest savings rates that leave massive savings reservoirs to fall upon. It is said that China alone might have another 3 trillion dollars worth floating as savings. And in terms of foreign reserves, you're going to find 9 out of 10 of the highest national foreign reserves just in Asia alone if you counting from Delhi to Tokyo, all packed in the Asian trade ecosystem that mutually interact each other.
Read the news lately man, who is giving countries monetary aid or loans? Who is acting like a quasi IMF or World Bank these days? Who is buying up companies everywhere?
Rich is about having surplus. Having high deficits means negative capital growth, which means less capital
Newsflash Ozzy, China's growth is more than sustainable because it still has a lot of fuel from the pool of inexpensive labor. Japan and Asian tigers stopped growing because they exhausted their cheap labor quite fast, although they're growing again by exploiting cheap labor in surrounding nations. China's own pool can still last for decades, while a vast middle class is forming around cities and coastlines. Despite the problems of any export led country, they got decisive advantages in dealing with any economic crisis by the sheer fact they are sitting on enormous reserves---a city like Hong Kong alone is sitting well over 100 billion---and highest savings rates that leave massive savings reservoirs to fall upon. It is said that China alone might have another 3 trillion dollars worth floating as savings. And in terms of foreign reserves, you're going to find 9 out of 10 of the highest national foreign reserves just in Asia alone if you counting from Delhi to Tokyo, all packed in the Asian trade ecosystem that mutually interact each other.
Read the news lately man, who is giving countries monetary aid or loans? Who is acting like a quasi IMF or World Bank these days? Who is buying up companies everywhere?
autumn child
New Member
Pretty much agree with you there except for some details.
US is richer than China if you use GDP/capita and total GDP, but poorer than China if you consider Savings, foreign reserve and buget surplus. However, you can;t blame ppl from saying that US is richer because most system still considers GDP/capita as the measure of richness.
Japan's lost two decades was due to its inability to reform and change. They have been running bad banks for far too long. Another contributing factor is the lack of entrepreneurs in Japan today. Japan's economy is dominated by large corporations. Although SOE's still contributes significantly to the economy in China, SME's and private companies grow most in rescent decades. Inovations in the civilian sectors are led by private sectors.
Cultural factors also plays a big part in China's future growth. Chinese culture has a close association with money and some southern Han culture regards being employees as a shame. Entrepreneurial spirit is embedded in these culture such as the Zhejiang people's culture.
On top of that, China is a very different economy dynamic than Japan. China have much larger domestic market and much more vibrant entrepreneurial culture...especially in southern China. China has more mineral wealth and land resources than Japan. Japan's and other asian tiger's economy will continue to be trade reliant economy while China can be much more balanced. It is also easier for China to form close economic relation with southeast asian country through the bamboo network of overseas chinese who have huge influence in SE Asia economy. So this mean that China has much larger economic influence and market than Japan.
My concern for china is if the country can continue to reform in the correct direction. From trade reliant economy to more domestic consumption based economy in the short term. China also need to create new industry such as the internet/IT boom in late 1990's in the US to grow after the economy is matured. To do this, a country must have enough entrepreuneurs resource, innovation and Total Factors of Productivity (TFP). High TFP is the only way a nation can grow beyond its resource limit. So far the three factors seems to be growing fast in China, so it still looks promising for China in the short run. Another concern is the aging population in China. Japan's aging population has played some part in retarding japanese economy in the long run. This may also effect China in the same way if population control is not relaxed soon.