11–20 of 159 posts
In economic terms, how is this sustainable?
This? It’s not sustainable. Sooner or later this will result in a correction. This could range from aggressive budgetary measures, an internal crisis all the way to China monetising its overseas investments (which are extremely extensive).
In economic terms, how is this sustainable?
And this is the deficit we know about. In reality it could be much larger, something like 1000% of GDP. The situation is the same with China’s military budget. In reality it’s probably 2x or 3x larger than the official numbers we have.
In economic terms, how is this sustainable?
That means that China can invest in infrastructure (roads, trains, airports, education) which have high real return making the increase in debt much less of a problem. This is also the reason why China has grown persistently 7-10% over the past two decades compared to USA which have grown 2-3% in the same period.
Per person China's GDP is less than a fifth of the US hinting that this still has some way to go.
In economic terms, how is this sustainable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why conquer when you can invest? They're investing. It's working. We're happy to have chinese investment in all spaces, ag, and mining, we buy the goods and we sell the dairy produce. The real threat is Tasmania: haven't you seen the wargames maps? We need those US-Chinese troops to fight back against the daemon armies from cradle mountain.
Investment doesn't buy you all the 'Living Space' you may want
Its a really bad argument. As long as we are happy to export tertiary education and then proffer immigration channels, there is no basis to argue the Chinese polity wants to invade: it can get people here legally, for good benefit both sides.
Pleae, don't feed the racist troll. The chinese are not swamping us and they cannot cause earthquakes by jumping up and down at the same time.