Analysis Tracking USA VS China Trade war

[jetray]

USA is afraid as its overcharging attitude will come to an end and equity will be established in labour cost with China. USA wants its people to have high wages and high standard of living unfairly over others and that is why alarmed over China. India stands to benefit by rationalising cost of high end goods from Chinese manufacturing. USA needs to be cut down in Indian interests. For example, USA overcharges semiconductors like intel chips by charging 200-300 dollars for one single chipset! These chipset are tiny pieces of silicon and does not cost much raw material. Most of the expense comes from fat paycheck of engineers and designers who are paid $200000 per annum in the silicon industry. If the salary is cut down to $25000 per annum by making the chips in India, the cost will come down to less than $50 per chipset.

Yes, thats the whole idea.
Fact is that the poor in India/china and US are same but dollar is the differentiating factor. By dollar being more value they can buy more goods and services for the effort they put in. If you look at the whole scenario its that 10-20% of the US industry which is competitive wrt to the world but rest of the industry is not so competitive. Now there is also problem with countries like china and India. They are not smart but utterly stupid when they sell their goods & services at a very low value. We are not realizing the fact that we are actually contributing to strengthening of US dominance and transfer of work/wealth by using dollar.

Every time we see US railing against venezuela, cuba, iran..etc is not just enmity but also bcos those countries are closed to them as markets for them. Its neo-colonialism at its best after all US is successor to the british. One good thing is that globalization over period of time will equalize the difference , its just like in sports where a new comer who does not the tactics but picks it up due course of time. The point is that will US allow any country to settle down? Absolutely not creating chaos and keep countries occupied is one way of doing it.

If you look at US vs Soviets it was not some ideological battle but more for supremacy on who will gain the economic dividends by global domination.

 

[advaidhya]

Yes, thats the whole idea.
Fact is that the poor in India/china and US are same but dollar is the differentiating factor. By dollar being more value they can buy more goods and services for the effort they put in. If you look at the whole scenario its that 10-20% of the US industry which is competitive wrt to the world but rest of the industry is not so competitive. Now there is also problem with countries like china and India. They are not smart but utterly stupid when they sell their goods & services at a very low value. We are not realizing the fact that we are actually contributing to strengthening of US dominance and transfer of work/wealth by using dollar.

Every time we see US railing against venezuela, cuba, iran..etc is not just enmity but also bcos those countries are closed to them as markets for them. Its neo-colonialism at its best after all US is successor to the british. One good thing is that globalization over period of time will equalize the difference , its just like in sports where a new comer who does not the tactics but picks it up due course of time. The point is that will US allow any country to settle down? Absolutely not creating chaos and keep countries occupied is one way of doing it.

If you look at US vs Soviets it was not some ideological battle but more for supremacy on who will gain the economic dividends by global domination.

The difference between USSR and USA was that USSR did not colonize countries and USA did opposite. USSR gave lot of its resources whereas USA only took resources. There was a vast difference between the two. USA succeeded because it took much more resources, made friends with benefits and got petrodollars whereas USSR made parasitic friends who took Russian resources and gave very little returns. This wasted USSR resources on countries that gave back nothing.

Take example of USA friends: Australia, Canada, Arabs, UK, France, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Singapore, Finland, Japan, taiwan, Malaysia, South Korea, Pakistan, Turkey

USSR allies: Central Asia, Cuba, Ukraine, Czech, Yugoslavia, Syria, India, North Korea, Mongolia, Cuba.

USA allies had either advantage in terms of natural resource (Australia, Canada, UK oil, Germany steel, Norway & malaysian oil) or trade route blocking (Singapore, Japan, Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, Switzerland) or had benefits of encircling enemy (Pakistan, Taiwan, S.Korea, Finland)

USSR allies had very little significance except for India and Cuba.

This was the ideological difference between USSR and USA. USA was capitalist which meant exploiting resources whereas USSR was communist which meant equity to workers. But at the end of the day, USA played with Islam which trumped all other cards and gave full access to Arab oil whereas USSR was atheist and hence antagonised Arabs. This is how USA won.

USA dollar is strong because of petrodollar established by alliance with islam. So, taking down USA production will require not just manufacturing but also taking down of petrodollars. The one country that i actually capable of doing that is India. India in the past could have leveraged it and made massive gains. But people were too cowardly and foolish beyond reason. had India been extremely militaristic and brutal, India would have been a superpower. But people chose to follow the most worthless people like Gandhi and behaved in a manner which is beyond reason. No country in the world has ever been this retarded.

Nevertheless, in today's scenario, India is in one of the topmost geopolitical hotspot and that is the reason why after Modi govt came the FDI inflow increased. The oil price crash of 2014 was also linked to Modi and his threats. Just look at the graphs:

All India has to do is threaten with serious consequences and "full intolerance" which will destroy middle east. Oil and investment will flow. India is more needed by them than USA due to political leverage and geographical location. Taking down China or USA dollars is not needed. Just the political leverage will be enough to make India grow rapidly. Those who would ask about actions from Modi govt don't realise the international upheavel in global order India caused.

USA was asked by Arabs to stop buying Arab oil from the excessively printed dollars. This is also the reason for shale oil boom, not "shale getting cheaper". USA was also asked to vacate Arab land by 2030 and Trump has announced an Arab NATO (Middle East strategic Alliance) which USA will assist during the meantime in return for petrodollar for that duration. USA is going down soon.

 

[Ashutosh]

USSR gave lot of its resources whereas USA only took resources. There was a vast difference between the two. USA succeeded because it took much more resources, made friends with benefits and got petrodollars whereas USSR made parasitic friends who took Russian resources and gave very little returns. This wasted USSR resources on countries that gave back nothing.

Take example of USA friends: Australia, Canada, Arabs, UK, France, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Singapore, Finland, Japan, taiwan, Malaysia, South Korea, Pakistan, Turkey

USSR allies: Central Asia, Cuba, Ukraine, Czech, Yugoslavia, Syria, India, North Korea, Mongolia, Cuba.

USA allies had either advantage in terms of natural resource (Australia, Canada, UK oil, Germany steel, Norway & malaysian oil) or trade route blocking (Singapore, Japan, Italy, Turkey, Netherlands, Switzerland) or had benefits of encircling enemy (Pakistan, Taiwan, S.Korea, Finland)

USSR allies had very little significance except for India and Cuba.

This was the ideological difference between USSR and USA. USA was capitalist which meant exploiting resources whereas USSR was communist which meant equity to workers. But at the end of the day, USA played with Islam which trumped all other cards and gave full access to Arab oil whereas USSR was atheist and hence antagonised Arabs. This is how USA won.

USSR was an expansionist empire based on the false premise of creating a socialist utopia, USA formed alliances and used its diplomatic corps to establish the Petro-dollar. What stopped the other powers ? Benevolence? It is not so. Nation takes cold hearted decisions to their own purpose of self interest and its citizens.

USSR was a composite super state, Central Asia, Ukraine, Czech, Yugoslavia were a part of its empire not Allies. India was a USSR Colony, we literally sold our resources on peanuts. US and the Soviets Both exploited the world fr their benefits. To hold one above the other is simply a political bias. Not an objective view.

 

[advaidhya]

USSR was an expansionist empire based on the false premise of creating a socialist utopia, USA formed alliances and used its diplomatic corps to establish the Petro-dollar. What stopped the other powers ? Benevolence? It is not so. Nation takes cold hearted decisions to their own purpose of self interest and its citizens.

USSR was a composite super state, Central Asia, Ukraine, Czech, Yugoslavia were a part of its empire not Allies. India was a USSR Colony, we literally sold our resources on peanuts. US and the Soviets Both exploited the world fr their benefits. To hold one above the other is simply a political bias. Not an objective view.

This is not true. USSR gae technology to India. USSR subsidised Indian oil. India had almost no resource to give back. USSR was an expansionist state but had certain cultural ambit. USA was a colonial state. That is the difference USSR gave equal importance to the interests of its parter states and did not give undue bias towards Russia alone. USA exploited resource from everywhere for the benefit of USA alone.

The difference between empire and colony is a big difference and must be understood.

 

[Ashutosh]

This is not true. USSR gae technology to India. USSR subsidised Indian oil. India had almost no resource to give back. USSR was an expansionist state but had certain cultural ambit. USA was a colonial state. That is the difference USSR gave equal importance to the interests of its parter states and did not give undue bias towards Russia alone. USA exploited resource from everywhere for the benefit of USA alone.

The difference between empire and colony is a big difference and must be understood.

Colonization means you come to a territory, claim it to be yours, and start colonizing it, i.e. making use of more and more of its resources. A well-colonized territory stops being a colony, because it’s ruled by people who resides there, and the economy consists no longer of settling there, but rather practicing an established model of economy.

In other words, a colony is something that is (1) under the rule of some external, distant, extraterritorial power and (2) is a “virgin” land, thinly populated, rudimentary organized and with a lot of resources that still wait for being taken into use.

From the moment of Varangian conquest of the entire stretch of fluvial navigation from the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea, Russia has consistently retained the pattern of colonization.

• First, penetrating the woodlands around the tributaries of Dniepr, Dniestr, and Don
• Then, pushing north and east into the thinly populated lands of Ugro-Finns
• Then, pushing east into the Turkic domains in Cumania, and beyond to the Far East—and across the Pacific to Alaska, down the coast to California
• The, pushing west to the Carpathian mountains and the Polish/German lands
• Then, south, all the way to Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan

Every "empire" had colonies, How do you think the British Got their empire ? Russians indulged in mass population transfers from the Russian hinterland to exploit acquired territories. The Russian people pushed out from their homeland and colonized large areas of Siberia, the Crimea, and the Ukraine. Which is why they lost almost all territories where ethnic non-Russians were a majority after two catastrophes—the 1917 Revolution and the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

It had satellite states that were under a certain degree of Soviet control, and those that made up the USSR, similar to the British Empire and it’s dominion nations. The difference is that the states such as Hungary and Poland were less autonomous, especially under the Brezhnev Doctrine that prevented any turning away from a pro-Soviet communist regime.

Territorially, the USSR was almost exactly the same as Czarist Russia, which was definitely a colonial empire. It was different from the other colonial empires in that its colonies were contiguous and not overseas possessions. The core of the empire was Russia and the Russians. Communists cannot have *true colonies* as was in the 18th and 19th century by European Powers, as easily, because their economic system is not set up for trade, manufacturing, transport, resource development and other capitalist functions..

Now, everywhere apart from Belarus locals are erasing the traces of Soviet presence with a happy abandon. The fact that no one of them chose a subordination to Moscow and decided to break with their past association with them proves that they considered themselves as soviet colonies, whatever you or I might think about it, though not in a British 19th Century sense. Colonialism has Changed over the years with the premise remaining the same.

USA is a Hegemonic Power and what you mark as colonialism is it simply the US state exerting it power and influence, Every Hegemon that has ever ben in state craft has exercised its influence to serve it interest. It is niter Wrong Nor it is right. it is what it is. Also, USSR didn't give technology to India. All most all weapons were imported and only assembled here. The only technology that we got was that of turning a screw driver. Tell me, how much did the lives of the average Indian Improve over in Quaity of life from 1947 to 1991 and then from 1991 to present. 1991 was the year USSR fell and we also went bankrupt. Let's leave out India and run this on the Warsaw pact nations post 1991, and the lives of their citizens there.

There is a history to how we became USSR's poodle, and lot of people see USSR as a friend, while it was clearly a master.

 

[advaidhya]

USA is a Hegemonic Power and what you mark as colonialism is it simply the US state exerting it power and influence, Every Hegemon that has ever ben in state craft has exercised its influence to serve it interest. It is niter Wrong Nor it is right. it is what it is. Also, USSR didn't give technology to India. All most all weapons were imported and only assembled here. The only technology that we got was that of turning a screw driver. Tell me, how much did the lives of the average Indian Improve over in Quaity of life from 1947 to 1991 and then from 1991 to present

You seem to misunderstand standard of living with technology. Technology is knowledge whereas standard of living requires resources. After 1991, India got resources from USA and its allies to contain India. USA gave Arab oil via petrodollars, not USA resource, which powered Indian growth. The reason to give oil was mainly because India was seeing rise of BJP and would have disrupted the oil trade with Arabs by its hardline policies. The intention was not benign from Arabs or USA.

USSR did give significant technology to India and helped in developing BHEL, BEL, Bombay high, MiG21, electronics etc. Indian source of many equipment and technology has been USSR and reverse engineering or direct ToT. But USSR did not have enough resources like USA had to give away. USA got Petrodollars from Arabs and simply gave away others oil for free.

USSR was an expansionist empire based on the false premise of creating a socialist utopia, USA formed alliances and used its diplomatic corps to establish the Petro-dollar. What stopped the other powers ? Benevolence? It is not so. Nation takes cold hearted decisions to their own purpose of self interest and its citizens.

What USA did was made an alliance to strengthen Islam whereas USSR refused to entertain Islam. The actions of USA has caused greatest of problems that could ever have happened. USA simply ruined everything and made it very difficult to survive. USA's actions were extremely shortsighted and caused major damage to pretty much everyone. Such things are not called wise decisions.

Territorially, the USSR was almost exactly the same as Czarist Russia, which was definitely a colonial empire. It was different from the other colonial empires in that its colonies were contiguous and not overseas possessions. The core of the empire was Russia and the Russians. Communists cannot have *true colonies* as was in the 18th and 19th century by European Powers, as easily, because their economic system is not set up for trade, manufacturing, transport, resource development and other capitalist functions..

This is my point. The colonialism of USSR was based on ideology of communism, not self interest. Whereas the colonialism of USA was based on self interest without ideology. They claimed to be capitalists but made alliance with Islam to get resources.

USA is a Hegemonic Power and what you mark as colonialism is it simply the US state exerting it power and influence, Every Hegemon that has ever ben in state craft has exercised its influence to serve it interest. It is niter Wrong Nor it is right. it is what it is. Also, USSR didn't give technology to India. All most all weapons were imported and only assembled here. The only technology that we got was that of turning a screw driver. Tell me, how much did the lives of the average Indian Improve over in Quaity of life from 1947 to 1991 and then from 1991 to present. 1991 was the year USSR fell and we also went bankrupt. Let's leave out India and run this on the Warsaw pact nations post 1991, and the lives of their citizens there.

USA is powerful because it has abundant natural resources and it got additional resources via petrodollars by alliance with Islam. Calling USA actions as wise is absurd. The natural resources are finite and will exhaust. But after that Islam will continue to exist in strengthened state and wreak havoc. One must have basic common sense as to not trade something long term for something of short term. USA did not have this basic common sense and cause great problems to everyone including itself and its allies in Europe. Temporary hegemonic power was not an excuse to ruin things permanently.

 

[Ashutosh]

You seem to misunderstand standard of living with technology. Technology is knowledge whereas standard of living requires resources. After 1991, India got resources from USA and its allies to contain India. USA gave Arab oil via petrodollars, not USA resource, which powered Indian growth. The reason to give oil was mainly because India was seeing rise of BJP and would have disrupted the oil trade with Arabs by its hardline policies. The intention was not benign from Arabs or USA.

USSR did give significant technology to India and helped in developing BHEL, BEL, Bombay high, MiG21, electronics etc. Indian source of many equipment and technology has been USSR and reverse engineering or direct ToT. But USSR did not have enough resources like USA had to give away.

You seem to misunderstand The Value Chain. Technology enables standard of living, both require resources. If you have a technology and no means to implement it what good use have such technology ? Indian Growth was never lacking because of Oil, it was lacking because we artificially inflated our currency and didn't develop value chains to open trade with the west, We didn't build our foreign reserves. So when the Russian Ruble crashed so did we. USA didn't "give oil", we started participating the global economy not act like a headstrong pretentious socialist state. We went bankrupt, mortgaged our gold because we didn't have Forex to pay for the trade from global economy. Once we set that ball rolling. We are doing good. No one does anything benign, Nations have to function in Realpolitik and have to take decisions in cold calculative manner to further their national interest what decisions they can take is shaped by their national power. Nations cannot work by moral grand standing, it daft for any nation to be benign.

BJP's Rise is the best thing that could have happened to the West. BJP has improved India's relation with the Arabs, why? BJP cannot produce natural resource despite its hard line stance, it is in national interest to get oil.


BHEL has tech partners from GE to Siemens to LMW. and that soviet technology ? It has started making modern power plants only after 1999, a full 3 decades later than rest of the world. Most of it tech were old soviet era designs that we as efficient as burning wood. Still Doesn't come close to those of Hyundai, Babcox and Wilcox, Siemens, Toshiba, Shanghai Electrical Company, Dong Feng and Hitachi Heavy Engineering.

BEL till early 2000 ago was only stamping foreign made products as its own, many integrating diff platform to achieve some intergration and product development. Does BEL even make any ARM MicroChips today? Let Alone x86 or x64 contemporary architecture ? why was it unable to make or even further domestic consumer electronics markets despite having a head start?

Bombay High field was discovered by an Indian oil exploration team operating from the seismic exploration vessel Academic Arkhangelsky. Did we get that for free ? The rigs were ordered from Russia by political choice and were duly paid for not sent by russsia as an act of benevolence.

Mig 21 a fine bird, we didn't make it. It was Russian, we just assembled it like we assemble the Su 30 MKI. having a mighty Screw driver isn't ToT, or reverse engineering. despite having HAL that was producing planes from World War 2 Era what happened after that how did our domestic aviation industry and supply chain vanish in dust. the answer lies in the loss of manufacturing and aviation R&D that ceased after Russian Jet assembly started.

USA got Petrodollars from Arabs and simply gave away others oil for free.

China giving its resources on a discount logic isn't applicable here ?

What USA did was made an alliance to strengthen Islam whereas USSR refused to entertain Islam. The actions of USA has caused greatest of problems that could ever have happened. USA simply ruined everything and made it very difficult to survive. USA's actions were extremely shortsighted and caused major damage to pretty much everyone. Such things are not called wise decisions.

USSR is based on an Atheistic Ideology it was not supposed to entertain any religion. Like China doesn't now. Also, all the "Left Leaning" intellectual ecosystem that you have in India was funded and supported by USSR in it s hey day. USA made alliance to strengthen itself, with Arabs. Did it resurrect the Khalifa system or any thing ? Letting in your own bigotry and hatred of Islam not a critique of USA. Wise decisions are wise only with the benefit of hind sight.

This is my point. The colonialism of USSR was based on ideology of communism, not self interest. Whereas the colonialism of USA was based on self interest without ideology. They claimed to be capitalists but made alliance with Islam to get resources.

Communism has killed 100-120 million people in the last century, and I quote "The actions of *** has caused greatest of problems that could ever have happened. *** simply ruined everything and made it very difficult to survive. ***'s actions were extremely shortsighted and caused major damage to pretty much everyone. Such things are not called wise decisions." I am from Bengal and have had (unavoidable) association with the Reds while they were in power from 1996 to 2011. So please spare me any Communism is good diatribe, Communism the manifestation of Evil in Human form,.

USA is powerful because it has abundant natural resources and it got additional resources via petrodollars by alliance with Islam. Calling USA actions as wise is absurd. The natural resources are finite and will exhaust. But after that Islam will continue to exist in strengthened state and wreak havoc. One must have basic common sense as to not trade something long term for something of short term. USA did not have this basic common sense and cause great problems to everyone including itself and its allies in Europe. Temporary hegemonic power was not an excuse to ruin things permanently

Your basic grouse with the USA seems to be that it allied with the Arabs, and in turn the Arabs, who also got rich, strengthened their own religion. You are quite Okay with USSR and that it directly caused the creation of the "Indian communist socialist leftist offspring" that "strengthen Islam" here in India. You are also Okay with China using its resources to further its national interest but have a problem when USA did so. Ideology is means to exert power, Nation that cunningly pursue self interest survive and thrive, there are no human Morals in Geo-Politics.

 

[advaidhya]

You seem to misunderstand The Value Chain. Technology enables standard of living, both require resources. If you have a technology and no means to implement it what good use have such technology ? Indian Growth was never lacking because of Oil, it was lacking because we artificially inflated our currency and didn't develop value chains to open trade with the west, We didn't build our foreign reserves. So when the Russian Ruble crashed so did we. USA didn't "give oil", we started participating the global economy not act like a headstrong pretentious socialist state. We went bankrupt, mortgaged our gold because we didn't have Forex to pay for the trade from global economy. Once we set that ball rolling. We are doing good. No one does anything benign, Nations have to function in Realpolitik and have to take decisions in cold calculative manner to further their national interest what decisions they can take is shaped by their national power. Nations cannot work by moral grand standing, it daft for any nation to be benign.

BJP's Rise is the best thing that could have happened to the West. BJP has improved India's relation with the Arabs, why? BJP cannot produce natural resource despite its hard line stance, it is in national interest to get oil.


BHEL has tech partners from GE to Siemens to LMW. and that soviet technology ? It has started making modern power plants only after 1999, a full 3 decades later than rest of the world. Most of it tech were old soviet era designs that we as efficient as burning wood. Still Doesn't come close to those of Hyundai, Babcox and Wilcox, Siemens, Toshiba, Shanghai Electrical Company, Dong Feng and Hitachi Heavy Engineering.

BEL till early 2000 ago was only stamping foreign made products as its own, many integrating diff platform to achieve some intergration and product development. Does BEL even make any ARM MicroChips today? Let Alone x86 or x64 contemporary architecture ? why was it unable to make or even further domestic consumer electronics markets despite having a head start?

Bombay High field was discovered by an Indian oil exploration team operating from the seismic exploration vessel Academic Arkhangelsky. Did we get that for free ? The rigs were ordered from Russia by political choice and were duly paid for not sent by russsia as an act of benevolence.

Mig 21 a fine bird, we didn't make it. It was Russian, we just assembled it like we assemble the Su 30 MKI. having a mighty Screw driver isn't ToT, or reverse engineering. despite having HAL that was producing planes from World War 2 Era what happened after that how did our domestic aviation industry and supply chain vanish in dust. the answer lies in the loss of manufacturing and aviation R&D that ceased after Russian Jet assembly started.

You are terribly mistaken. Technology without resource is a waste. Thr problem with resource is that these are non renewable and will not be traded for money but for political benefits. If you really think that India integrated into global economy without political restrictions, you are fooling yourself. The foreign countries invested in bettering economy of India to weaken India militarily. The growth seen in military after 1990 was due to supercomputing rather than USSR collapse. Supercomputing changed the way things work and that just coincided with USSR collapse but was not related. Indian growth was mainly because of 3 reasons:
1) Supercomputing
2) Foreign capital
3) Chinese manufacturing providing cheap goods

India manufactures chips and semiconductors. 180nm is the lithography in SCL, chandigarh. These are 2002 level technology and are good enough for all military applications. It could have improved but UPA after 2004 scuttled it. UPA was CIA sponsored, not Russian sponsored.

China giving its resources on a discount logic isn't applicable here ?

China gave its resource for its own benefit and rapidly industrialised with its own manufacturing. Arabs gave their oil to USA and it was USA that gave military power, intelligence network etc which serve much more than China's resource sale. No one strengthened China militarily. Only economic strengthening was done. So, it is different.

USSR is based on an Atheistic Ideology it was not supposed to entertain any religion. Like China doesn't now. Also, all the "Left Leaning" intellectual ecosystem that you have in India was funded and supported by USSR in it s hey day. USA made alliance to strengthen itself, with Arabs. Did it resurrect the Khalifa system or any thing ? Letting in your own bigotry and hatred of Islam not a critique of USA. Wise decisions are wise only with the benefit of hind sight.

The left intellectual scenario in India was started with Nehru. The system in India eveolved in this manner:
Nehru was installed by British and was more friendly to USA. But Indira Gandhi was installed by USSR and was more friendly to USSR. The USSR influence on India was reduced in the 1980s and above due to economic crisis in USSR. So, USSR friendship with India lasted only about 20 years in total from 1966-1977 and 1980-1989 in true form. In those years India did develop significant technology in defence. Nehru had willfully neglected technology but it was during this time that foundation of Indian technology was laid. This is the reason why I would say that USSR was more beneficial to India and the relation was not colonialism.

The liberal intellectuals are not the creation of USSR but the creation of USA and UK. The intention was to clamp down on Hindutva in general. The very foundation of Congress was under the strings of USA/UK immediately after independence. Don't forget the initial 20 years of USA influence and simply harp only on Indira Gandhi days.

The so called left intellectuals are not at all left but foreign funded LIBERAL people. USA also had deep network in India. Don't mistake liberal activists to leftists. Liberalism is USA policy which is different from leftism.

Communism has killed 100-120 million people in the last century, and I quote "The actions of *** has caused greatest of problems that could ever have happened. *** simply ruined everything and made it very difficult to survive. ***'s actions were extremely shortsighted and caused major damage to pretty much everyone. Such things are not called wise decisions." I am from Bengal and have had (unavoidable) association with the Reds while they were in power from 1996 to 2011. So please spare me any Communism is good diatribe, Communism the manifestation of Evil in Human form,.

Don't mistake my words as supporting communism. I only said that USSR was beneficial to India whereas USA ruined a lot of things beyond control. In India, the real influence of USSR in central govt was during the time of Indira Gandhi and to a little extent during Rajiv Gandhi. The 1977 elections were lost by Congress and the Janata Party which came with the help of CIA. So, even then the presence of USA was there as a continuation of Nehru era. Soviets regained control with Indira winning elections in 1980. But the influence waned after 1985 due to USSR declining in strength.

Your basic grouse with the USA seems to be that it allied with the Arabs, and in turn the Arabs, who also got rich, strengthened their own religion. You are quite Okay with USSR and that it directly caused the creation of the "Indian communist socialist leftist offspring" that "strengthen Islam" here in India. You are also Okay with China using its resources to further its national interest but have a problem when USA did so. Ideology is means to exert power, Nation that cunningly pursue self interest survive and thrive, there are no human Morals in Geo-Politics.

Don't be a retard in saying there are no morals or ideology. Life is not just about 40-50 years. So, sacrificing next 400-500 years to secure 40-50 years of hegemony is insane by all standards.

Indian communist soialist leftist offspring are not communist of leftist. They are called "LIBERALS". Liberals are USA stooges, not USSR. Don't mistake between Liberals and Leftists. Leftists don't give rights. Liberals give special rights to evil people. Leftists are brutal whereas Liberals are sinister

 

[Volcano]

China suspended talks with US until US midterms.

 

[BMD]

Laffer: Trump's trade war pushes China 'to behave like a proper country'

Laffer: Trump's trade war pushes China 'to behave like a proper country'

Krystal Hu
Reporter

Yahoo FinanceSeptember 1, 2018

President Trump’s proposed tariffs on $200 billion worth of imported goods from China, which could hit in early September, has unnerved many American businesses and customers who think that Trump is causing unnecessary economic damage.

But Art Laffer, renowned economist and former advisor to President Ronald Reagan, argues that it’s all for the better because Trump is using tariffs to pressure China to “behave” in regard to globally-connected trade.

“Trump is doing a great job with Mexico and, I believe, with Canada as well. But the real goal is to get China into the free trade world and to behave like a proper country should behave in a free trade world,” Laffer, who advises Trump on tax policy, told Yahoo Finance’s Midday Movers on Friday. “Don’t steal our [Intellectual Property]. Don’t have tariffs against our products. Don’t manipulate currency. Just trade, and trade fairly.”

Laffer added that “China is a huge plus to the U.S. because without China there is no Walmart [WMT], and without Walmart there is no middle class or lower class prosperity in America.”

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a roundtable discussion on the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, Aug. 23, 2018. (Photo: Yuri Gripas/Bloomberg)

More

‘China is going to be left out in the cold’
President Trump made progress with a bilateral trade deal with Mexico early this week, while discussions with Canada are ongoing. Laffer, sometimes called the father of supply-side economics, sees Trump’s work with Mexico and Canada as a necessary step to eventually pull China back to the table.

“Once we get the deals with these other countries, China is going to be left out in the cold,” Laffer said. “And they really depend upon trade.”

China’s economic growth depends more on trade than the U.S. Exports of goods and services account for about 20% to the 2017 GDP of China, the world’s second-largest economy, compared to 12% of U.S. GDP in 2017.

(Photo: KEI)

Consequently, Laffer believes the economic miracle of 21st century China — driven by mass manufacturing meeting globalization — could be the weak spot when it comes to a trade war. In July, Laffer, whose thinking has been influential with President Trump, sent an analysis titled “The Great Fall of China” to the White House. He argued U.S. tariffs on Beijing were causing “substantial risk of derailing much of the past 50 years of growth in China,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

Laffer reiterated the point on Midday Movers, warning that China could “ill afford a setback” in a trade war scenario.

‘I believe deep down that he’s a free trader’
Laffer, a staunch free-trade advocate who called Trump an “amazing negotiator,” sees Trump borrowing a page from Reagan’s playbook by first imposing tariffs and then suggesting zero tariffs.

“Now what he’s told me and what I believe is happening is the threats of protection have brought these people to the table. And he said to me personally he has very little leverage except by threatening tariffs,” said Laffer. “And I have to trust him that he’s telling me the truth because I believe deep down that he’s a free trader. Any chief owner of an international business has to be a free trader if they know how to do business and he does.”

Art Laffer in Washington, DC on Sunday, March 8, 2015. (Photo: Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)

More
Despite singing praises for President Trump’s negotiation tactics, there is one thing Laffer doesn’t stand with the president: that a trade war is easy to win.

“A trade war is the exact opposite of anything I want to see,” Laffer said, citing the lessons of Nixon’s presidency. “Trade wars are horrible and that is the one thing we may need to make sure we avoid, and free trade is the only real answer.”

 

[zinswinsin]

If there is a cold war or at least a return to direct strategic competition. I doubt India can sit pretty and stay neutral this time. Last time USA and USSR while cared about India, it was largely on the sideline in terms of interests between the two superpowers. Also, if India is to ascend to superpower status it cannot possibly stay neutral. A superpower is marked by four things soft powercultural projection and diplomacy) and hard skills ( economic and military) I would say economic is the most important by far. The west was never going to lose the cold war in hindsight, however, just say the Soviets managed to cling on longer, would India's development have been affected massively different? Probably not. Compare what's to gain and lose from China's rise.

Anyways a bit sidetracked, this time the main power competition is directly related to India's interests.

 

[BMD]

China says world trade system not perfect, needs reform

China says world trade system not perfect, needs reform


ReutersSeptember 14, 2018

FILE PHOTO: A worker places U.S. and China flags near the Forbidden City ahead of a visit by U.S. President Donald Trump to Beijing, in Beijing, China November 8, 2017. REUTERS/Damir Sagolj/File Photo

More
BEIJING (Reuters) - The current world trade system is not perfect and China supports reforms to it, including to the World Trade Organization, to make it fairer and more effective, Beijing's top diplomat said.

China is locked in a bitter trade war with the United States and has vowed repeatedly to uphold the multilateral trading system and free trade, with the WTO at its center.

But speaking late on Thursday to reporters after meeting French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, Chinese State Councillor Wang Yi said some reforms could be good.

While certain doubts have been raised about the current international trading system, China has always supported the protection of free trade and believes that multilateralism with the WTO at its core should be strengthened, Wang added.

"At the same time, we do not believe that the current system is perfect and without flaws," he said.

"China supports necessary reforms and perfection of the current system, including to the WTO, to make it fairer, more effective and more rational," Wang added.

The basic tenets of the WTO, in opposing protectionism and supporting free trade should not change, but the rights of developing nations should also not be overlooked, he said.

"The aim of reform should be to allow countries to enjoy the development fruits of globalization more fairly, not to further widen the differences between south and north," Wang said.

WTO reforms need to include listening to voices from all parties and broad consultation, and should especially listen to a respect the opinions of developing countries, rather than just allowing "one person to have a say", he added.

"The issue of WTO reform is extremely complex, and involves many areas. (China) hopes all parties remain patient, and advance step by step."

His remarks come as China and the United States may return to the negotiating table with the threat of new U.S. tariffs looming. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has extended an invitation to talks to his counterparts in Beijing.



"TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SHOULD NOT BE MISTAKEN"

But China will not buckle to U.S. demands in any trade negotiations, the major state-run China Daily newspaper said in an editorial on Friday, after Chinese officials welcomed an invitation from Washington for a new round of talks.

The official China Daily said that while China was "serious" about resolving the stand-off through talks, it would not be rolled over, despite concerns over a slowing economy and a falling stock market at home.

"The Trump administration should not be mistaken that China will surrender to the U.S. demands. It has enough fuel to drive its economy even if a trade war is prolonged," the newspaper said in an editorial.

If the United States imposed new levies on Chinese imports then Beijing "will not hesitate to take countermeasures against U.S. tariffs to safeguard China's interests," it added.

President Donald Trump said on Twitter on Thursday that the United States holds the upper hand in talks.

"We are under no pressure to make a deal with China, they are under pressure to make a deal with us," Trump tweeted. "Our markets are surging, theirs are collapsing."

The U.S. administration is readying a final list of $200 billion in Chinese imports on which it plans to levy tariffs of 10-25 percent in coming days, which would ramp up the trade war between the world's two largest economies.

Trump said last week that he also had tariffs on an additional $267 billion worth of goods ready "on short notice if I want."

A meeting among Cabinet-level officials could ease market worries over the escalating tariff war that threatens to engulf all trade between the world's two largest economies and raise costs for companies and consumers.

However, the last round of talks, between mid-level U.S. and Chinese officials in August, failed to reach any agreement.

 

[BMD]

That's why Trump is reforming it for them.

 

[BMD]

China's Stocks Sink to Lowest Level Seen in $5 Trillion Crash

China's Stocks Sink to Lowest Level Seen in $5 Trillion Crash

 

[BMD]

Trump doubles down on trade war with China and warns: 'If countries will not make fair deals with us, they will be "Tariffed!"'

Trump doubles down on trade war with China and warns: 'If countries will not make fair deals with us, they will be "Tariffed!"'

• President Donald Trump on Monday said tariffs had put the US "in a very strong bargaining position."
• He threatened other countries with tariffs if they didn't "make fair deals with us."
• The US is expected to levy tariffs on another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods as soon as Monday.
• China has threatened to retaliate and pull out of negotiations if that happens.

US President Donald Trump escalated his trade-war rhetoric on Monday, threatening unspecified countries with tariffs if they "will not make fair deals with us."

The US is already engaged in a trade war with China and is expected to levy new tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods as soon as Monday, on top of the tariffs in place on more than $50 billion worth of Chinese goods.

 

[vstol Jockey]

In NDA, Pune, I had written a paper about the so called Star Wars which Reagan started against former USSR and see how USSR collapsed. This tariff war against China is designed to weaken their economy, create a crash and than move in for the final kill.

 

[BMD]

In NDA, Pune, I had written a paper about the so called Star Wars which Reagan started against former USSR and see how USSR collapsed. This tariff war against China is designed to weaken their economy, create a crash and than move in for the final kill.

The only thing keeping the CCP alive was the fact the economy was flourishing due to exports to the US, and US companies providing jobs. But they skew trade with a weak currency and every non-free internal market rules. They fully deserve these tariffs.

I do think Star Wars was more than a ploy. It got to the stage where Brilliant Pebbles won the competition against Excalibur but in the absence of the USSR they couldn't justify the spending anymore. The news on the original Robocop movie gives a depiction of a 2020 arms race where the USSR was still alive.

 

[advaidhya]

In NDA, Pune, I had written a paper about the so called Star Wars which Reagan started against former USSR and see how USSR collapsed. This tariff war against China is designed to weaken their economy, create a crash and than move in for the final kill.

USSR collapsed due to oil price crash. USSR had started to enjoy high oil prices and started exporting oil since 1975. For 10 years, the economy of USSR boomed by imports from Europe in return for oil exports. In 1985, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries increased oil production drastically to destroy USSR with the help of USA. The reason for Arab hostility to USSR was because of its atheist policy ad de-islamisation of central asia. This oil glut made Russian oil value-less and could not import needed goods from Europe. Russia tried selling gold in return for goods but the gold reserves ran out and the Arabs were relentless in their oil production. At the same time, Jihadi problems were created in Afghanistan. Chechnya, Yugoslavia etc and East Germans were instigated against USSR. This further increased expense of military and foreign aids to appease the client states.

In 1989, USSR had two choice -

• Reduce civilian expenditure to 1975 levels when USSR was mostly self sufficient and cut down on imports which risked mass uprising
• Reduce military expenditures and cut down on foreign aid

Gorbachev chose to cut down military and foreign aid. This led to USSR collapse. The star war did not make USSR collapse. USSR had plenty of scientists and human resource to compete with USA. It was the civilian goods shortage that led to USSR collapse

 

[BMD]

A decent economy doesn't need to base itself on oil and gas revenue. These are prone to natural fluctuation as history has shown.

The tariff war against China is simply because they're not playing by the rules with respect to copyright, currency trading and internal NTBs against foreign goods. In fact, they actually started this trade war with the aforementioned, Trump just joined the war by actually fighting back.

 

[BMD]

U.S. approval of $330 million military sale to Taiwan draws China's ire

U.S. approval of $330 million military sale to Taiwan draws China's ire