• Log in with Twitter Log In with Google
  •    Sign In   
  • Create Account

You are viewing the forum as a guest. For a better experience, and to remove this ad, please sign in or create an account.

Forum Search New Content Forum Rules Boards Status Updates Livestreams Fan-made Images Fan-made Videos Chatroom
Photo

Will the U.S be able to pay China back this decade?


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

Will the U.S be able to pay back China this decade?(22 members have cast votes)

  1. Firetruck no! (13 votes [59.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 59.09%

  2. No idea. (3 votes [13.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.64%

  3. Yes, because Obama is so cool! (2 votes [9.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.09%

  4. I don't care. (4 votes [18.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

Vote

To vote, please sign in or register.

#21 VENROXAS

VENROXAS

    I am the heartless King~

  • Members
  • 1,227 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:25 PM

SO 8 billion to china.... We are already a trillion or so in Dept, hmm lets think, ah yes lets raise the taxes more and spend more for unnecessary military funds that we don't need and while were at it lets help china ah yes brilliant plan.

#22 Amon

Amon

    I am the solution.

  • Members
  • 3,105 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:26 PM

I'd respond to all of your responses in more detail, because I like good conversation, but I'm limited on time and feel the urgent need to respond, at least, to the bolded statement above.

Dear God, mate, is this really your outlook? Do you have any idea the damage "our success" has rendered upon the unfortunate population lying outside our exclusive little circle of liberalized/industrialized Western states? The numbers, when you actually look at them, I assure you, will devastate you (and if they don't, you're a heartless being). The sheer amount of exploitation and gains at our end (and that's another issue altogether - the gains made by MNCs, the primary sources of the FDI/other foreign investments coming out of US capital, are hardly advantageous, on a direct level, to an American layman anyway) at the expense of jobs, capital, markets, skilled (and unskilled) labor in LDCs and even NICs is ludicrous. Furthermore, "law of comparative advantage" my ass - the division of labor between developing countries and developed countries hardly even exists when a mass portion of those have virtually one or two primary products to export, many of them the same products, at that, allowing for even more exploitation of the resulting monopsony and ludicrous terms of trade on our end. So, OK, if liberalization is working so well for us, let's just ship it overseas to those less fortunate countries. Let's take a look at what many of our MNCs do (many of which, mind you, including Walmart, General Motors, BP, Toyota, etc, have total sales surpassing the GDPs of many countries): Firstly, they avoid paying their fair share of taxes through transfer-pricing mechanisms designed to transfer their colossal profits to countries where taxes are lower. What that effectively does is, say an American manufacturer produces parts then ships them to Mexico for assembly, to then be shipped back. But, Mexico demands a higher tax on corporate profits than the US, where the MNC is based - the MNC can then overprice the parts shipped to Mexico and underprice the assembled parts that are "sold" back to the American firm back home. In other words, the MNC pays lower taxes at the expense of the Mexican subsidiary, who now makes very little. This happens more often than you'd think. As if that weren't enough, MNCs remove scarce capital from LDCs by charging royalties and licensing fees for manufacturing products on which they hold copyrights AND, through bribery/lobbying of corrupt government officials overseas (and trust me, there are lots of them - people are desperate), they get special tax breaks. The indirect effects are profound, as well. Sure, MNCs transport technology to their foreign subsidiaries - industrialization, good! ...you might say. Unfortunately, most of the technology transferred is capital-intensive technology requiring expensive equipment and skilled workers, which not only does little to amend high local unemployment rates in those regions, but actually stunts the development of local technology, discourages local research/development, and drives out local entrepreneurs, leaving those regions even worse off than they already were. And not only do they not, usually, bring capital into LDCs but often set up businesses that use up the limited supply of local capital available for the sake of self-interest and preservation of their oh so limited resources. Moreover, bank loans to MNCs mean less money is available for local entrepreneurs to borrow, and the resulting competition from MNCs can destroy existing domestic industries.

If you have any desire to help out countries that are not the U.S., Canada, Australia/New Zealand, Western European, or Japan, I'd advise changing your outlook on what system is efficient and equitable.



Is our "exploitation" over seas as bad as you try to make it out though? Do you know why people are actually working under these conditions? It's because they have no choice. A comfortable area of work in a third world nation? They have almost all been taken buddy. Without our companies offering massive amounts of people work there would be starvation, even more poverty, even civil unrest. These "exploits" are the only things that are keeping a lot of people alive.

MNCs are pretty much required to take care of the countries they have business in to an extent. It's all about public relations really but if people from the US are going to a factory in Pakistan and see conditions that are borderline slavery you have a PR disaster that could cost the company millions. Have you seen the film "Hotel Rwanda" or at least heard of the Genocides that took place there in 1994? Over 1000 people were saved in a 5 star hotel in the capital. The owners of the hotel, all the way in Belgium considered closing it down should shit hit the fan (which it did). But they didn't. Why? Do you know what would happen to the hotel chain when people here that they essentially sentenced thousnads of innocent people to be butchered? The entire company would be flat out broke or go have their 5 star resorts turned into truck stops.

Plus, everything is just a matter of Social Darwinism. The more developed countries are naturally going to gain dominence over the least developed ones. Trying to raise (or lower) each nation to the same level will prove disasterous. Some cultures thrive with a technologically "inferior" (for the lack of a better term) society while others pratically worship the pixels that dance across their glass screens. For business purposes, areas need either small rapid amounts of modernization, or slow modernization over time. Do you know why Europeans were able to take over the Americas from the natives so quickly? Guns. Do you know why the Europeans struggled to mentain their dominance over the Americas for a time? The natives got guns. If you just give the locals all the technology they need to keep up with the rest of the world there would be massive destablization. Who should have acess to this new technology? How should it be used?

Look at India. Britian slowly and carefully modernized it for business purposes. When they left did the country go to shit? No! They developed nuclear weapons and became a world power. Yeah there is still a shitton of poverty, but only because it is one of the most heavily populated nations on earth.

#23 XIIISwords

XIIISwords

    Hero of Fire

  • Members
  • 1,620 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:49 PM

Tg that option 3 has yet to be voted for.

#24 Think Pink

Think Pink

    ♥♡♥

  • Forum Team
  • 3,663 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:28 PM

SO 8 billion to china.... We are already a trillion or so in Dept, hmm lets think, ah yes lets raise the taxes more and spend more for unnecessary military funds that we don't need and while were at it lets help china ah yes brilliant plan.

They raise the taxes to help pay it off. ._. taxes = more money = debt paid
The military funds are not unnessecary, they are beyond important. It words like this: if we leave them alone, then they try to set off bombs and kill us. And I sorta kinda like being alive.
We're not helping China--they helped us. They loaned the U.S. money and now we have to pay it back. We're not helping them. It's totally reversed in this situation.

#25 Sora96

Sora96

    That guy who made 153 posts in one day

  • Archives Team Leader (+)
  • 14,440 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:45 PM

Technically Australia is the west.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lol. We are the south.

The United States had to go through this period eventually. When you have an economy that only boomed because of the fact that after WWII we were the only country that was stable and not destroyed by war


We were not destroyed by war. And we never will be. All we ever got was the bombings in Darwin and Broome. And both of those cities stood after the the bombings.

Australia FTW!

#26 Flaming Lea

Flaming Lea

    Red Hot Ho and Professional Badass

  • Members
  • 6,227 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:54 AM

Lol. We are the south.



We were not destroyed by war. And we never will be. All we ever got was the bombings in Darwin and Broome. And both of those cities stood after the the bombings.

Australia FTW!


LMAO If the US hadnt entered the war Im sure Australia wouldve fallen/ been taken over . One of the reasons Japan bombed Pearl Harbor was to attempt to disable a very serious future threat of the Sleeping Giant known as the US.. They were already taking over/ attacking every territory/island/country in the Pacific on.

#27 Amon

Amon

    I am the solution.

  • Members
  • 3,105 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 04:13 PM

Lol. We are the south.



We were not destroyed by war. And we never will be. All we ever got was the bombings in Darwin and Broome. And both of those cities stood after the the bombings.

Australia FTW!


So what exactly would you describe as "southern" policies?

Slavery?
Drug Running?
Child soldiers?
The rulers are rich while the people starve?

It seems rather silly to associate yourself with the Southern half the world. Plus, you said the north was rising as well, so you pretty much just said Europe, Continental Asia, and North America is rising as well? North vs South is just a silly and heavily flawed way of looking at things.
-----------------------
Let's look at some basic WW2 statistics shall we?

Total Australian Army- 724 thousand soldiers
Total Imperial Japanese Army- 6 million soldiers

400,000 Australians served outside of the country, bringing down the total number of possible defenders to just 324 thousand soldiers.

Around 1 million japanese soldiers were reserved for occupying countries that they have taken. The total offensive capacity of a japanese invasion would have 5 million soldiers.

Basic military doctrine suggest a minimum of a 5:1 troop ratio for attacking a fortified position, which the shores and towns of Australia would be if they are expecting an invasion. Do you know the ratio that the Japanese had?

16:1 give or take. That means for every 1 australian defender, there would be 16 Japanese defenders. Australian defenses would be EASILY overwhelmed.

However history has proven that the size of these armies may not win the battle. But the Japanese military at the time of a feesable invasion of Australia had not only well trained soldiers, but soldiers that have fought battles and won them many times before. As for the Aussie defenders, many of them have never held a gun before.

I conclude this with a math equation

Australia - America= firetruckED

#28 Sora96

Sora96

    That guy who made 153 posts in one day

  • Archives Team Leader (+)
  • 14,440 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:09 PM

LMAO If the US hadnt entered the war Im sure Australia wouldve fallen/ been taken over . One of the reasons Japan bombed Pearl Harbor was to attempt to disable a very serious future threat of the Sleeping Giant known as the US.. They were already taking over/ attacking every territory/island/country in the Pacific on.


So what exactly would you describe as "southern" policies?

Slavery?
Drug Running?
Child soldiers?
The rulers are rich while the people starve?

It seems rather silly to associate yourself with the Southern half the world. Plus, you said the north was rising as well, so you pretty much just said Europe, Continental Asia, and North America is rising as well? North vs South is just a silly and heavily flawed way of looking at things.
-----------------------
Let's look at some basic WW2 statistics shall we?

Total Australian Army- 724 thousand soldiers
Total Imperial Japanese Army- 6 million soldiers

400,000 Australians served outside of the country, bringing down the total number of possible defenders to just 324 thousand soldiers.

Around 1 million japanese soldiers were reserved for occupying countries that they have taken. The total offensive capacity of a japanese invasion would have 5 million soldiers.

Basic military doctrine suggest a minimum of a 5:1 troop ratio for attacking a fortified position, which the shores and towns of Australia would be if they are expecting an invasion. Do you know the ratio that the Japanese had?

16:1 give or take. That means for every 1 australian defender, there would be 16 Japanese defenders. Australian defenses would be EASILY overwhelmed.

However history has proven that the size of these armies may not win the battle. But the Japanese military at the time of a feesable invasion of Australia had not only well trained soldiers, but soldiers that have fought battles and won them many times before. As for the Aussie defenders, many of them have never held a gun before.

I conclude this with a math equation

Australia - America= firetruckED


You can't take over Australia because of a thing called "Re-Supply"!

#29 Amon

Amon

    I am the solution.

  • Members
  • 3,105 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:53 PM

You can't take over Australia because of a thing called "Re-Supply"!


Without naval and air support from the Americans the Japanese wouldn't have any problem with supply ships or air drops considering no other navy or airforce in the pacific could directly take on the Japanese other than the Americans. Occupied Idonesia and Papau New Guinea are very close to Australia and would of served as staging points for the supply ships. Plus considering that the Japanese had no respect for the countries they occupied, slave labor and raids on villages would mean the Japanese soldiers would be well supplied at the expense of other occupied nations.

The supply lines on land will only need to be a short distance from the cost line since every city of political or strategic importance are along the shorelines or not too far from it in Australia.

#30 Flaming Lea

Flaming Lea

    Red Hot Ho and Professional Badass

  • Members
  • 6,227 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:03 PM

Without naval and air support from the Americans the Japanese wouldn't have any problem with supply ships or air drops considering no other navy or airforce in the pacific could directly take on the Japanese other than the Americans. Occupied Idonesia and Papau New Guinea are very close to Australia and would of served as staging points for the supply ships. Plus considering that the Japanese had no respect for the countries they occupied, slave labor and raids on villages would mean the Japanese soldiers would be well supplied at the expense of other occupied nations.

The supply lines on land will only need to be a short distance from the cost line since every city of political or strategic importance are along the shorelines or not too far from it in Australia.

This and the fact that Australias military has left a lot to be desired . If you think that Austrailia couldve defended itself from Japan without America you are sadly mistaken.

#31 Sora96

Sora96

    That guy who made 153 posts in one day

  • Archives Team Leader (+)
  • 14,440 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:17 PM

This and the fact that Australias military has left a lot to be desired . If you think that Austrailia couldve defended itself from Japan without America you are sadly mistaken.


I recall the only ever attacks on Australia were defended by Australia alone.

#32 Amon

Amon

    I am the solution.

  • Members
  • 3,105 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:33 PM

I recall the only ever attacks on Australia were defended by Australia alone.


Because those attacks were from nations poking Australia. Really no more than glorified raiding parties if anything.

A full on invasion would be comparable to Australia getting a sword shoved up it's ass which is exactly what would happen if America didn't stop the Imperial Fleet.

If you want an image as to how the Battle of Australia would go, just image the German Blitzkrieg on France only the attacking flags have red dots instead of swastikas.

There are only two options for an Australian defense.

1. Use superior Allied intellgience gathering to place all soldiers in a concentrated region and wait for the japanese there.

OR

2. Spread the army thinly as far as possible to secure all areas.

Both of these would fail, why? The japanese would simply outflank the Australian defenses like the germans outflanked the Maginot line, or in the case of the second option, the Japanese would make use of their 16:1 ratio and break through with no problems across every front.

You'd honestly have to either know nothing about history or be completely delusional to think that Australia even had a fighting chance against a full on japanese invasion.

#33 Sora96

Sora96

    That guy who made 153 posts in one day

  • Archives Team Leader (+)
  • 14,440 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:41 PM

Because those attacks were from nations poking Australia. Really no more than glorified raiding parties if anything.

A full on invasion would be comparable to Australia getting a sword shoved up it's ass which is exactly what would happen if America didn't stop the Imperial Fleet.

If you want an image as to how the Battle of Australia would go, just image the German Blitzkrieg on France only the attacking flags have red dots instead of swastikas.

There are only two options for an Australian defense.

1. Use superior Allied intellgience gathering to place all soldiers in a concentrated region and wait for the japanese there.

OR

2. Spread the army thinly as far as possible to secure all areas.

Both of these would fail, why? The japanese would simply outflank the Australian defenses like the germans outflanked the Maginot line, or in the case of the second option, the Japanese would make use of their 16:1 ratio and break through with no problems across every front.

You'd honestly have to either know nothing about history or be completely delusional to think that Australia even had a fighting chance against a full on japanese invasion.


Never said we did. And I do admit if it wasn't for the U.S World War II would have have been the end of the world. But the U.S went the wrong way about it.

But could Japan march across all of Australia? No.

#34 Flaming Lea

Flaming Lea

    Red Hot Ho and Professional Badass

  • Members
  • 6,227 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:56 PM

Because those attacks were from nations poking Australia. Really no more than glorified raiding parties if anything.

A full on invasion would be comparable to Australia getting a sword shoved up it's ass which is exactly what would happen if America didn't stop the Imperial Fleet.

If you want an image as to how the Battle of Australia would go, just image the German Blitzkrieg on France only the attacking flags have red dots instead of swastikas.

There are only two options for an Australian defense.

1. Use superior Allied intellgience gathering to place all soldiers in a concentrated region and wait for the japanese there.

OR

2. Spread the army thinly as far as possible to secure all areas.

Both of these would fail, why? The japanese would simply outflank the Australian defenses like the germans outflanked the Maginot line, or in the case of the second option, the Japanese would make use of their 16:1 ratio and break through with no problems across every front.

You'd honestly have to either know nothing about history or be completely delusional to think that Australia even had a fighting chance against a full on japanese invasion.


Exactly

#35 Amon

Amon

    I am the solution.

  • Members
  • 3,105 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:12 PM

Never said we did. And I do admit if it wasn't for the U.S World War II would have have been the end of the world. But the U.S went the wrong way about it.

But could Japan march across all of Australia? No.


We clearly went the right way about it because all Japanese occupied territories were liberated and had their previous goverments installed and we managed to avoid what would be the bloodiest battle in human history, a frontal invasion of the Japanese home islands.

And like I said, the Japanese don't need to march across all of Australia, all of the important settlements are along the coast which because it's... you know... a coast it can be easily occupied and reinforced. As for the center of the continent? They would be forced to surrender to the Japanese or face certain starvation with their supplys cut off.

#36 Sora96

Sora96

    That guy who made 153 posts in one day

  • Archives Team Leader (+)
  • 14,440 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:19 PM

We clearly went the right way about it because all Japanese occupied territories were liberated and had their previous goverments installed and we managed to avoid what would be the bloodiest battle in human history, a frontal invasion of the Japanese home islands.

And like I said, the Japanese don't need to march across all of Australia, all of the important settlements are along the coast which because it's... you know... a coast it can be easily occupied and reinforced. As for the center of the continent? They would be forced to surrender to the Japanese or face certain starvation with their supplys cut off.


You call blowing up two cities with nuclear bombs "the right way"?

#37 Flaming Lea

Flaming Lea

    Red Hot Ho and Professional Badass

  • Members
  • 6,227 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:21 PM

Never said we did. And I do admit if it wasn't for the U.S World War II would have have been the end of the world. But the U.S went the wrong way about it.

But could Japan march across all of Australia? No.

Theres nothing wrong with the way we went about it.. We ended the war and liberated the concentration death camps preventing further death. Also, Dont you know that other Axis countries were on the verge of Using the same Atomic bomb but we got to it first and ended it all.. So imagine the atrocity of the axis powers dropping Atomic bombs and then say we ended it the wrong way ..really lmao

#38 Sora96

Sora96

    That guy who made 153 posts in one day

  • Archives Team Leader (+)
  • 14,440 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:26 PM

Theres nothing wrong with the way we went about it.. We ended the war and liberated the concentration death camps preventing further death. Also, Dont you know that other Axis countries were on the verge of Using the same Atomic bomb but we got to it first and ended it all.. So imagine the atrocity of the axis powers dropping Atomic bombs and then say we ended it the wrong way ..really lmao


The U.S decided to kill thousands of harmless Japanese people. By doing that their no better than the Japanese.

#39 Flaming Lea

Flaming Lea

    Red Hot Ho and Professional Badass

  • Members
  • 6,227 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:32 PM

The U.S decided to kill thousands of harmless Japanese people. By doing that their no better than the Japanese.

Oh and the many civilians dead in Pearl Harbor on a country that wasnt even at war was ok.Get real..I bet if Japan dropped a bomb on your ass you wouldnt be saying that .Come on now xD.. Also, like i said the world was thisclose to having humanity wiped out if the Axis powers had beat us to it ..Which they attempted to do. Its better to kill a few then the whole freaking world being anihillated dont you think ?

#40 Amon

Amon

    I am the solution.

  • Members
  • 3,105 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:34 PM

You call blowing up two cities with nuclear bombs "the right way"?


If it meant saving the lives of millions of Americans and even more Japanese civillians then yes. The ends justify the means.

You know what Bushido is right? The Japanese would not accept surrender. They would go down guns blazing. In the last days of the war, in prepration for a possible invasion Women were being taught how to fire rocket launchers, Children recieved instructions on how to use their small size to sneak around and silently kill Americans. Others civillians were taught how to blow themselves up with grenades.

Japan, as we saw could recover from two Atomic Bombs. But if an invasion were to ever take place, Japan would be plunged into the Dark Ages and the sad truth is that wasn't an exaggeration.

Let's also not forget that the USSR later declared war on Japan. And they are less forgiving than us Americans are. Civilian casualties for the most part would be self inflicted by the Japanese themselves or be forced to get killed as they would become armed combatants. The USSR makes no distinction between civillian and soldier. Their counter offensive against Germany proves this.