• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

NEWS Waterfront property in the Spratlys? Good investment or not?

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator

Pags

N/A
pilot
Interesting. The first part sounds like a naval version of Rommel's WWI infiltration tactics. The 2nd part of having a 4 ship ARG is a good idea - but will be financially constrained. However with the 2 ships of the America class, it could be deployed a few times as proof of concept.
Bite and hold!
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
Not the Spratly's but it is China related: from George Friedman at Geopolitical Futures.

Trump, Taiwan and an Uproar

China’s ability to counter is limited. It has money in American banks, and if the Chinese want to redeposit that money in European banks, it’s their risk to take. Their military capabilities remain limited. Their navy remains no match for the U.S. Navy, and they can’t afford a war whose outcome they can’t predict. The U.S. is 25 percent of the world’s economy. China can’t walk away from the U.S. without enormous pain. The U.S. can’t afford to leave the relationship unchanged, and China may not be able to stonewall Trump as they did with other presidents....

Trump signaled to China that he can take away what Nixon gave them. By doing what Nixon did – using volatility and unpredictability to intimidate – Trump set the stage for a negotiation that China can’t refuse. China must have access to American markets even if the terms become less favorable. Previous presidents were prepared to posture but did nothing substantial about China. With a single phone call, Trump did what he seems to do best – baffle and unnerve a negotiating partner.


https://geopoliticalfutures.com/trump-taiwan-and-an-uproar/
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
...China can’t walk away from the U.S. without enormous pain. The U.S. can’t afford to leave the relationship unchanged, and China may not be able to stonewall Trump as they did with other presidents....
Well, the same goes for us.

By doing what Nixon did – using volatility and unpredictability to intimidate – Trump set the stage for a negotiation that China can’t refuse.
Oh, there is a lot of irony in that quote. What Nixon did may have worked with China but it didn't work out too well with the rest of his Presidency.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Only Nixon could go to China because he'd established his bona-fides as a Red-baiter in the '50's. He gave "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy a run for his money as the number-one Commie-hunter in the Senate. Whereas the Dems were on the defensive in the "who lost China?" narrative, trying to butch up their anti-Communist creds all through JFK and LBJ's terms. So the Dems could not take the domestic political risk, and Nixon could. In other words: political calculation based on years of experience and reputation. I fail to see how that applies to our current political predicament. Nixon was never seen as a reckless and ill-informed game-show host.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
Only Nixon could go to China because he'd established his bona-fides as a Red-baiter in the '50's. He gave "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy a run for his money as the number-one Commie-hunter in the Senate. Whereas the Dems were on the defensive in the "who lost China?" narrative, trying to butch up their anti-Communist creds all through JFK and LBJ's terms. So the Dems could not take the domestic political risk, and Nixon could. In other words: political calculation based on years of experience and reputation. I fail to see how that applies to our current political predicament. Nixon was never seen as a reckless and ill-informed game-show host.

I completely agree with the first part about only Nixon could go to China. As for the latter, it is an interesting take by George Friedman who is a pretty smart guy. Not saying he is correct, but well worth considering his perspective.

Speaking of Geopolitical Futures, I would think most people here would be interested in the following:

The Road to 2040: A Summary of Our Forecast
Dec. 2, 2015 We look into the future and forecast what the world will look like in a quarter of a century. We predict several disruptions in the global structure by 2040 and conclude that much of the instability over the next 25 years will be focused in the European and Asian continents.

Here is a summary of some of our key predictions for the next 25 years.


https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-road-to-2040-a-summary-of-the-forecast/
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
This has the potential to get a little more exciting than when Sealand used to take potshots at buoy tenders.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
After noting the Chinese buildup on those artificial islands, this is another dangerous sign from CNBC on China.

Those higher interest rates in the US next year could make big problems for China

Higher interest rates in the United States could make it harder for China to manage its exploding debt, as the Asian giant increasingly depends on borrowing in order to keep growing — while simultaneously trying to block capital from fleeing for more fruitful shores in America...But the ability to keep financing its "massive debt binge" is impaired, Sharma said, if too much money bleeds out of the system. And China needs a lot of money — and more and more of it — to keep hitting the largely arbitrary 6-percent GDP growth rate that Beijing has mandated for the country.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/14/high...line|story&par=yahoo&doc=104166906&yptr=yahoo



Meanwhile, from the Washington Post.

45 years ago, Kissinger envisioned a ‘pivot’ to Russia. Will Trump make it happen?

Kissinger then observed that “in 20 years your successor, if he’s as wise as you, will wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese.” He argued that the United States, as it sought to profit from the enmity between Moscow and Beijing, needed “to play this balance-of-power game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to discipline the Russians.” But in the future, it would be the other way around.

Could it be that, almost 45 years after Nixon’s breakthrough with China, the United States’ 45th president will be taking Kissinger’s advice? President Obama tried to make a “pivot” to Asia the capstone of his foreign policy. Will Donald Trump make a “pivot” toward Moscow, and away from Beijing, a capstone of his?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-trump-make-it-happen/?utm_term=.63b5ad7b351a

Does Tillerson as Secretary of State portend this re-alignment? Is it Molotov-Ribbentrop circa 2017? Time to go back and re-read Tom Clancy's The Bear and the Dragon.


 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
China has exploding debt? What is their national debt to GDP ratio?
 

hscs

Registered User
pilot
China has exploding debt? What is their national debt to GDP ratio?
I think this gets at the commercial and consumer loan market vs government. A lot of the former loans are off the books, making it even harder to know the whole story.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I think this gets at the commercial and consumer loan market vs government. A lot of the former loans are off the books, making it even harder to know the whole story.

I have read some smarter analysis about that and there is big worry from some that the size of the debt is a big question mark, a lot of it 'local' government debt that has been hidden from or ignored by the central government.
 
Top