Strong Rhetoric on China

[rebuy]

VOICES FROM THE BEYOND....

[oldtimer]

1 minute ago, rebuy said:

Some people are way more smarter than you think.

Thanks for the compliment.

You are very welcome.  You know, once on here a guy pm'ed me in an outrage that I was trying to make them look like an "ignant hick" (sic).  Yes that is exactly how it was presented.  No matter how I tried to explain, the guy persisted in shutting his ears, presumably so as to remain an "ignant hick."

 

Most people aren't nearly as smart as one would like to think.

[Travis In Austin]

4 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

You know what happens when lenders find out huge debtors are on the ropes?  They lend them more money.  

 

I think our indebtedness actually gives us great leverage.

It can be a great leverage if their is enough foreign investment to absorb the debt at current rate.

 

Or are you suggesting we threaten to default on it if they don't behave?

 

 

[Jeff Matthews]

1 minute ago, dwilawyer said:

It can be a great leverage if their is enough foreign investment to absorb the debt at current rate.

 

Or are you suggesting we threaten to default on it if they don't behave?

 

 

All is fair in love and war.  There is a time and place for everything.

[oldtimer]

Just now, dwilawyer said:

It can be a great leverage if their is enough foreign investment to absorb the debt at current rate.

 

Or are you suggesting we threaten to default on it if they don't behave?

 

 

It doesn't take a threat.  Any action taken that would jeopardize their investment would be foolish on their part.

[Travis In Austin]

Just now, Jeff Matthews said:

All is fair in love and war.  There is a time and place for everything.

We have never done that, except as forcing  reparations after winning a real war, as opposed to a trade war.

 

There seems to be universal agreement over trying to use defaulting on debt as a treat because of reaction by other foreign investment.

 

Are they wrong?

 

 

[Jeff Matthews]

11 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

There seems to be universal agreement over trying to use defaulting on debt as a treat because of reaction by other foreign investment.

 

Are they wrong?

You mean to ask if a threat of default would hinder our credit-worthiness with other lenders?

[Travis In Austin]

And then there is the Taiwan issue that nobody wants to discuss.

 

@Mallette knows a great deal about this, he saw how complex it was just with Hong Kong, which was the expiration of a lease.

 

That is China's Trump card.  You can talk big and bold all you want, but  all China has to say is well "we have been more than fair and generous with you, perhaps it is time for us to rethink our position on Taiwan."

 

The US cannot have, and does not have any treaties with Taiwan.  For example, we have no extradition treaty with Taiwan.  Why is that? 

 

 

[Jeff Matthews]

2 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

The US cannot have, and does not have any treaties with Taiwan.  For example, we have no extradition treaty with Taiwan.  Why is that? 

I think it's because as part of opening up trade relations with China under Nixon, we committed to a "One China Policy."  Under it, we are permitted to advocate that China follow a democratic model, but we are not permitted to acknowledge Taiwan's sovereignty.  I think it was a middle ground so that we could happily trade with both.

[Travis In Austin]

2 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

You mean to ask if a threat of default would hinder our credit-worthiness with other lenders?

Yes, that is the solid consensus, is it accurate?  They say it would put us at 3rd world rates and we would default on the entire 50% of debt held by foreign investors, not just China.

 

They have the equivalent of  "major creditor" status in the Bankruptcy arena.

[oldtimer]

Do you realize how much life would change here in the US if they "rethought" their position on Taiwan?  Yeah, exactly.

[oldtimer]

2 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

Yes, that is the solid consensus, is it accurate?  They say it would put us at 3rd world rates and we would default on the entire 50% of debt held by foreign investors, not just China.

 

They have the equivalent of  "major creditor" status in the Bankruptcy arena.

See my post regarding why they would be foolish to jeopardize their position.

[Jeff Matthews]

1 minute ago, dwilawyer said:

Yes, that is the solid consensus, is it accurate?  They say it would put us at 3rd world rates and we would default on the entire 50% of debt held by foreign investors, not just China.

 

They have the equivalent of  "major creditor" status in the Bankruptcy arena.

I somewhat doubt it, except for political reasons.  Nobody would actually doubt our capacity to repay.  Further, I would anticipate that if things progressed this far, we'd probably have the typical allies join us in the effort.  So, it wouldn't just be a rogue move.  It would be a quite coordinated effort by the richest nations of the world.

[oldtimer]

8 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

Why is that? 

I like that you ask why, because it begs the question, why not?

[Zen Traveler]

1 hour ago, dwilawyer said:

I just hid @Zen Traveler 3 most recent posts which were clearly an attempt to swing this talk into current national politics.  @Zen Traveler,

I was expressing my opinion on what I thought important and evidently can't add anything else to the discussion. I absolutely think the solution lies in what I've been articulating and it's not an R or D thing--It's about effective diplomacy working with allies.....Ignore me indeed. 

[Zen Traveler]

1 hour ago, Jeff Matthews said:

 

I don't know if locking up a million Muslim citizens without due process is a lesser offender than Russia, or not.  Make the case for me.

How can this question be answered without breaking the rules? Larry is talking about American concerns. 

[Max2]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

I somewhat doubt it, except for political reasons.  Nobody would actually doubt our capacity to repay.  Further, I would anticipate that if things progressed this far, we'd probably have the typical allies join us in the effort.  So, it wouldn't just be a rogue move.  It would be a quite coordinated effort by the richest nations of the world.

I seriously question our allies commitment to anything real like bucking  China.  Even though these tariffs are long past due, we don't really have a likable leader to follow even though he is right in this direction.  All we need are the Paks and India to join up with the filth and suddenly everything changes very dramatically.   Once we lose our bluff, our lead is done and who says it isn't already?

[Jeff Matthews]

3 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

How can this question be answered without breaking the rules? Larry is talking about American concerns. 

I mentioned that China has been invading the sovereignty of many nations by purchasing so-called "loyalty" from the leadership.  Money talks everywhere you go.  All comparing could do is wind up in an endless ***-for-tat.  It's pointless.

[rebuy]

[Jeff Matthews]

1 minute ago, Max2 said:

I seriously question our allies commitment to anything real like bucking  China.  Even though these tariffs are long past due, we don't really have a likable leader to follow even though he is right in this direction.  All we need are the Paks and India to join up with the filth and suddenly everything changes very dramatically.   Once we lose our bluff, our lead is done and who says it isn't already?

Pak and India will never join China.  The US and Britain own them and their undying loyalty.  

 

China, Russia, N. Korea.  Those are the problem areas.  If I understand correctly, Russia is not very fond of China at all.  They can be bought.  Keep that in mind.