NEWS If War Comes, Will the U.S. Navy Be Prepared?

[Random8145]

Bend to what? Are you really comparing the actions of some vapid Hollywood actors (and let’s face it, the “movie industry” isn’t exactly the key to any nations global success) to the mechanisms of a global economy? As I noted earlier the world is already moving beyond China. India and South America are making aggressive moves to assume more manufacturing and supply lines are being redirected because of the lessons of COVID. Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Microsoft, and Amazon are actively seeking to move, or have moved, significant parts of their business capacity outside of China. In the case of HP and Dell, these companies moved about are 30% of their China-based activity to India, Vietnam, and other places. Other firms that are among US companies that are seeking alternatives to China are Google, Sony, and Nintendo. But, I will state it once more, the essential point is that China will eventually have to bend to the will of its own middle class. The simple truth is that China is neither a colossus nor a creaking disaster waiting to happen. They are a first world nation facing first world problems. They feel the heat of global competition just like the US and the EU, and if the Central Committee attempts another Great Leap Forward based on ideology they will suffer the same fate.

I would dispute that the world is moving beyond China. And Hollywood is but one example. I also cited Big Business as a whole. Also professional sports like the NBA. It is good if large businesses are moving a good degree out of China, but that is only in terms of their manufacturing and supply operations. They are not doing it in terms of selling to the Chinese, as the Chinese represent a HUGE source of profits and hence $$$ to be made. And if you speak out actively against the actions of the Chinese government, they'll block your company or at least you run the risk of it. Only if all the major businesses united together and told China to stop or they would stop selling to China, would that bend the Chinese government, but otherwise, businesses individually bow to the CCP because the profits are just too large for them. Also just a nitpick, but Sony and Nintendo are Japanese, not American.

Maybe I am cynical, but I am firm believer that greed is the ultimate driver of human behavior for the most part, aside from fear, at least at the levels of business and international relations. And whoever represents a huge pool of people to produce goods and services for, represents a large enough source of potential gold to look the other way regarding whatever evil their government is doing. Big (and smaller) Business will boycott say a state like Georgia over a transgender bathroom law or support gun control here in the USA, but they'll turn a total blind eye to the CCP's actions.

And as long as China represents such a huge consumer population, much of global business and hence the global economy will bend to them, IMO. Their ability to get everyone to kiss their butts is not because of their manufacturing so much, it is because of their consumer potential.

 

[Griz882]

I would dispute that the world is moving beyond China. And Hollywood is but one example. I also cited Big Business as a whole. Also professional sports like the NBA. It is good if large businesses are moving a good degree out of China, but that is only in terms of their manufacturing and supply operations. They are not doing it in terms of selling to the Chinese, as the Chinese represent a HUGE source of profits and hence $$$ to be made. And if you speak out actively against the actions of the Chinese government, they'll block your company or at least you run the risk of it. Only if all the major businesses united together and told China to stop or they would stop selling to China, would that bend the Chinese government, but otherwise, businesses individually bow to the CCP because the profits are just too large for them. Also just a nitpick, but Sony and Nintendo are Japanese, not American.

Maybe I am cynical, but I am firm believer that greed is the ultimate driver of human behavior for the most part, aside from fear, at least at the levels of business and international relations. And whoever represents a huge pool of people to produce goods and services for, represents a large enough source of potential gold to look the other way regarding whatever evil their government is doing. Big (and smaller) Business will boycott say a state like Georgia over a transgender bathroom law or support gun control here in the USA, but they'll turn a total blind eye to the CCP's actions.

And as long as China represents such a huge consumer population, much of global business and hence the global economy will bend to them, IMO. Their ability to get everyone to kiss their butts is not because of their manufacturing so much, it is because of their consumer potential.

I respect what you are saying but I don’t think you understand that greed is universal. Chinese middle class and rich and are just as greedy as the western middle class and rich and you are foolish if you think otherwise. You are thinking about the economy in terms of money (and apparently entertainment) when you need to be thinking of it in terms of geography, globalism, and human nature. But let’s look at it differently than I say annd use your model of greed…why are vital global companies moving their production lines out of China? The answer is simple…greed. The Chinese middle class wants more, the Chinese rich want more and the Chinese worker wants more. The cost of labor in China is no longer globally cheap…it is rising, so greed will, and is, compelling corporations to move their production facilities to cheaper areas like India, Vietnam, and South America. This is a universal truth of economics, just ask Boeing as you tour their fancy new facility in South Carolina…where skilled labor is far more affordable and far less focused on organized labor than say…Seattle.

As to your second part, I would argue that the future of consumerism rests in India far more than China. China has arrived on the global stage, will do what it does, but will forever remain captive to the forces of a global economy, just as the US is.

 

[Notanaviator]

I respect what you are saying but I don’t think you understand that greed is universal. Chinese middle class and rich and are just as greedy as the western middle class and rich and you are foolish if you think otherwise. You are thinking about the economy in terms of money (and apparently entertainment) when you need to be thinking of it in terms of geography, globalism, and human nature. But let’s look at it differently than I say annd use your model of greed…why are vital global companies moving their production lines out of China? The answer is simple…greed. The Chinese middle class wants more, the Chinese rich want more and the Chinese worker wants more. The cost of labor in China is no longer globally cheap…it is rising, so greed will, and is, compelling corporations to move their production facilities to cheaper areas like India, Vietnam, and South America. This is a universal truth of economics, just ask Boeing as you tour their fancy new facility in South Carolina…where skilled labor is far more affordable and far less focused on organized labor than say…Seattle.

As to your second part, I would argue that the future of consumerism rests in India far more than China. China has arrived on the global stage, will do what it does, but will forever remain captive to the forces of a global economy, just as the US is.

Agree with this, and think that the interesting dynamic to watch will be of China’s economy continues to plateau or cool a bit from its terrific growth over the last several decades, how exactly does that change their domestic picture? As @Griz882 pointed out, the Chinese have created something like 800-850MM new middle class folks in the last decade or something absurd like that, and these folks have largely gone along with the authoritarian/Orwellian type nonsense because the CCP can plausibly argue those things helped provide the prosperity. Not a lot different than 1930s Germany and Italy there. But if the economy slacks off, do those people push back and say ‘this is no longer worth my while?’ Does that cause CCP to make more drastic actions abroad or further tighten the leash domestically to either stoke nationalism or just maintain control by force?

 

[robav8r]

I didn’t say that anywhere in any of my posts the DOD shouldn’t be making plans for the worst or planning for a military on military engagement.

Step . . . away . . . from . . . the keyboard. You are chum in the water and being eaten by sharks, and you can’t even see that.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

And as long as China represents such a huge consumer population

In 10-15 years, they won't as their consumer base ages into retirement and they don't have the bodies to replace them largely because of the One Child policy of the 80s/90s/early 00s.

This is what a healthy demographic chart looks like:


This is not:

 

[Random8145]

I respect what you are saying but I don’t think you understand that greed is universal. Chinese middle class and rich and are just as greedy as the western middle class and rich and you are foolish if you think otherwise. You are thinking about the economy in terms of money (and apparently entertainment) when you need to be thinking of it in terms of geography, globalism, and human nature. But let’s look at it differently than I say annd use your model of greed…why are vital global companies moving their production lines out of China? The answer is simple…greed. The Chinese middle class wants more, the Chinese rich want more and the Chinese worker wants more. The cost of labor in China is no longer globally cheap…it is rising, so greed will, and is, compelling corporations to move their production facilities to cheaper areas like India, Vietnam, and South America. This is a universal truth of economics, just ask Boeing as you tour their fancy new facility in South Carolina…where skilled labor is far more affordable and far less focused on organized labor than say…Seattle.

I respect what you are saying too, I think maybe we are misunderstanding one another. I agree that China is captive to the forces of global economics as much as the U.S. is. What I meant though is that in terms of that limiting China's various oppressive behaviors, it would require the world to be united in being willing to limit trade with China which I don't see most of the world's nations or businesses doing because of how much money stands to be made. As you said, one needs to think of the economy in terms of geography, globalism, and human nature. Globalism means global trade and human nature means greed, and China has such a huge population for consumer potential that as long as the Chinese represent such a large source of money to be made, I think they will more bend the world (economically) then the world bend them.

As to your second part, I would argue that the future of consumerism rests in India far more than China. China has arrived on the global stage, will do what it does, but will forever remain captive to the forces of a global economy, just as the US is.

I am not saying you're wrong, but curious as to why you think India represents the future of consumerism more than China does? China's population still has a lot of growth and catching up to do prosperity-wise, they are not at American levels of prosperity yet or even Western European levels. So it's not like their current level of consumption is fixed and it's now onto India. We are IMO just at the beginning in terms of the consumer potential China represents in terms of all the "stuff" that companies can sell to them. India represents an additional new market.

 

[Griz882]

I respect what you are saying too, I think maybe we are misunderstanding one another. I agree that China is captive to the forces of global economics as much as the U.S. is. What I meant though is that in terms of that limiting China's various oppressive behaviors, it would require the world to be united in being willing to limit trade with China which I don't see most of the world's nations or businesses doing because of how much money stands to be made. As you said, one needs to think of the economy in terms of geography, globalism, and human nature. Globalism means global trade and human nature means greed, and China has such a huge population for consumer potential that as long as the Chinese represent such a large source of money to be made, I think they will more bend the world (economically) then the world bend them.



I am not saying you're wrong, but curious as to why you think India represents the future of consumerism more than China does? China's population still has a lot of growth and catching up to do prosperity-wise, they are not at American levels of prosperity yet or even Western European levels. So it's not like their current level of consumption is fixed and it's now onto India. We are IMO just at the beginning in terms of the consumer potential China represents in terms of all the "stuff" that companies can sell to them. India represents an additional new market.

To answer your questions simply…First, the global economy won’t tolerate an oppressive China…we are seeing that already.to your second question…wages. India is cheaper than China…EDIT…Sorry, I think I reversed your question on you. India’s demographics indicate faster growth than China’s AND (to tie it in with my point) lower wages are attracting more industry to India which will, in turn, increase their wants, needs, and desires.

 

[Random8145]

In 10-15 years, they won't as their consumer base ages into retirement and they don't have the bodies to replace them largely because of the One Child policy of the 80s/90s/early 00s.

This is what a healthy demographic chart looks like:
View attachment 31649

This is not:
View attachment 31650

This is a legitimate point but it's one factor and like you said, it's 10-15 years out, and even then, I am skeptical that at that point, China won't still represent a huge source of profit for global business and for quite a long period to come. So it's a long time stil.

 

[Random8145]

To answer your questions simply…First, the global economy won’t tolerate an oppressive China…we are seeing that already.to your second question…wages. India is cheaper than China.

How are we seeing it though? Businesses moving their production out of China doesn't mean they don't tolerate an oppressive China because they have no problem selling to China. Also this reminds me of a point I forgot to address, but regarding the entertainment industry, I am not thinking of the global economy in terms of entertainment as you seemed to think, I just mean it as an example. It shows the influence China has consumerism-wise, in how Hollywood is so willing to bend to their desires and just the same, so will other industries. Could you imagine Apple or any such boycotting China over their actions and refusing to sell there?

 

[Griz882]

How are we seeing it though? Businesses moving their production out of China doesn't mean they don't tolerate an oppressive China because they have no problem selling to China. Also this reminds me of a point I forgot to address, but regarding the entertainment industry, I am not thinking of the global economy in terms of entertainment as you seemed to think, I just mean it as an example. It shows the influence China has consumerism-wise, in how Hollywood is so willing to bend to their desires and just the same, so will other industries. Could you imagine Apple or any such boycotting China over their actions and refusing to sell there?

There is a great line in an old movie (I’ll try to think of the name) where one Cold War GI tells another that we won’t beat the Soviets with tanks and bombs but with nylon stockings and Hersey bars. Basically that is the essential truth here. You seem to think that the world needs Chinese consumerism when in fact China needs global consumerism. Also, you need to help me out…what industry has bent a knee to China’s will outside entertainment? Not automotive, not consumer electronics, not even “soft” industries like Social Media who allow China to block things internally but don’t stop open criticism of China around the globe. To your last point on Apple, no I don’t think they would (in fact they banned an app in Hong Kong at the CCPs request) but they (Apple) are hardly the pivot point of the global economy - just ask Samsung. More importantly, read this…

Apple to move production from China to India and Vietnam

The iPhone 12 will be manufactured in India starting this quarter, Vietnam gets iPads and HomePod mini. Apple is moving its production away from China and...

www.gsmarena.com

 

[Notanaviator]

How are we seeing it though? Businesses moving their production out of China doesn't mean they don't tolerate an oppressive China because they have no problem selling to China. Also this reminds me of a point I forgot to address, but regarding the entertainment industry, I am not thinking of the global economy in terms of entertainment as you seemed to think, I just mean it as an example. It shows the influence China has consumerism-wise, in how Hollywood is so willing to bend to their desires and just the same, so will other industries. Could you imagine Apple or any such boycotting China over their actions and refusing to sell there?

Honestly, if you’re looking through the lens of 2000-2010, no, the business environment in China was different then than it is today. There have always been certain sacrifices and kiss the ring dynamics at play doing business there, but that environment has hardened in the last several years, to include specifically a more robust legal framework that makes cooperation with the CCP a lot more compulsory and ‘protections against monopolistic business practices’ wielded more often to ensure trade secrets and technologies are shared with Chinese firms, specifically those with government ownership.

In the same way that BRI deals with regional neighbors are starting to be seen as predatory by the intended users, and looked at with a weather eye instead of a “look, free infrastructure!” Handout, same goes for the decision to base Asian business ops in China.

 

[Spekkio]

In 10-15 years, they won't as their consumer base ages into retirement and they don't have the bodies to replace them largely because of the One Child policy of the 80s/90s/early 00s.

We're about to face the same thing due to market forces (primarily higher education and health care) making 25-40 year old couples have on average fewer than 2 children.

 

[Notanaviator]

We're about to face the same thing due to market forces (primarily higher education and health care) making 25-40 year old couples having on average fewer than 2 children.

Not to verge anywhere near Thunderdome territory and trigger a bunch of folks, but anyone seen US population trends without immigration lately…?

 

[taxi1]

This is just my opinion, but I do not believe that China has any mutual or shared interest with the U.S. on climate change.

China’s energy situation isn’t good. They’re killing themselves with coal and pollution right now, not 40 years down the road, so that has to be weened off. They don’t have access to the other hydrocarbons like we do, so they have this tenuous, easily interrupted supply chain. Now they are the world leader in renewable technologies, for obvious reasons.

the NKs

That is never going to end well. Just least bad outcomes. But the Norks do serve as a continuing object lesson in what humanity is capable of.

 

[taxi1]

Not to verge anywhere near Thunderdome territory and trigger a bunch of folks, but anyone seen US population trends without immigration lately…?

I give all our friends who have less than 2.2 kids a hard time now.

But it absolutely is a thing. Demographics is destiny, someone said. Japan is leading the way in how society is going to have to evolve, with a declining demographic.

Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications

Fewer babies’ cries. More abandoned homes. Toward the middle of this century, as deaths start to exceed births, changes will come that are hard to fathom.

www.nytimes.com

Like an avalanche, the demographic forces — pushing toward more deaths than births — seem to be expanding and accelerating. Though some countries continue to see their populations grow, especially in Africa, fertility rates are falling nearly everywhere else. Demographers now predict that by the latter half of the century or possibly earlier, the global population will enter a sustained decline for the first time.

A planet with fewer people could ease pressure on resources, slow the destructive impact of climate change and reduce household burdens for women. But the census announcements this month from China and the United States, which showed the slowest rates of population growth in decades for both countries, also point to hard-to-fathom adjustments.