China overtakes Japan as No.2 economy, US next by 2025.

[DOR]

China is soon going to overtake the US as the world's largest and leading economy. And the fact that China and Russia are aligning as a military power to be reckoned with, is going to cause the hawks to sit back in their rockers and stop imagining their hopes of a military solution for the US.

MAD has saved the world for 75 years and it's more likely than not that it's going to save us for the next 75. Although it's going to be a bumpy ride!

There can't be any doubt that Trump's handlers recognize the urgency in the current situation. And the undeniable fact that the US's trade war isn't working out well for them.

montgomery,

You make a lot of bold statements, but you don't bother to define your terms.
What's largest mean to you?
Leading? What's that?

Come on, put some thought into it and back it up with some sources.

[montgomery]

montgomery,

You make a lot of bold statements, but you don't bother to define your terms.
What's largest mean to you?
Leading? What's that?

Come on, put some thought into it and back it up with some sources.

Can you be more explicit with your questions please?

For instance, what terms have I used that you would like to hear further defined?

Largest? Could there be any doubt on what 'largest' means?

I'll do my homework and find you some references.

And so: I did my homework and found this comes up in a Google search:

It represents the total dollar value of all goods and services produced over a specific time period, often referred to as the size of the economy. Usually, GDP is expressed as a comparison to the previous quarter or year. ... The countries with the largest GDP in descending order are 1. The United States, 2. China, 3.Feb 21, 2019

I find it an acceptable explanation so I won't bother to expand on that for now. If you disagree with it as the answer to your question then let me know and I'll spend some more time with you in order to help you understand.

FWIW Dor, most refer to it as the size of the economy, as you may notice in the quote.

[DOR]

Your Googlefu led you to a measure called Gross Domestic Product and based on the results, it appears to be calculated in current values at average (or year-end) market exchange rates. Is that the definition you want to use?

I’ll give you credit for not falling for the purchasing power parity nonsense in measuring total economic size, but there are significant problems with how China calculates its own GDP figures. For example, if you total up all the provinces (which I have done, for about 20 years now), the result is between 8% and 20% larger than the national total. That’s possible only if the national government is subtracting massive amounts of value. . .

But, why GDP? Why not domestic demand or national income? \

Leading? What's that?

Largest number of college grads? Most income per person? Greatest number of patents? Best computer speeds? Greatest number of popular film titles shown worldwide? Most hits on popular search engines?

There is no accepted definition of “leading,” which means you need to define it yourself. Otherwise, the measure of PhDs per university isn’t going to make sense.

[montgomery]

Your Googlefu led you to a measure called Gross Domestic Product and based on the results, it appears to be calculated in current values at average (or year-end) market exchange rates. Is that the definition you want to use?

I’ll give you credit for not falling for the purchasing power parity nonsense in measuring total economic size, but there are significant problems with how China calculates its own GDP figures. For example, if you total up all the provinces (which I have done, for about 20 years now), the result is between 8% and 20% larger than the national total. That’s possible only if the national government is subtracting massive amounts of value. . .

But, why GDP? Why not domestic demand or national income? \

Leading? What's that?

Largest number of college grads? Most income per person? Greatest number of patents? Best computer speeds? Greatest number of popular film titles shown worldwide? Most hits on popular search engines?

There is no accepted definition of “leading,” which means you need to define it yourself. Otherwise, the measure of PhDs per university isn’t going to make sense.

I'm a little confuse on what you're on about? PhD's per university.

I provided the correct answer to your question on what 'leading' meant and now you seem to want to argue the point.

Do you want to hear my opinions on the broad topic of economics? If so I'll be more than happy to debate the topic with you, if in fact we arrive at any differences of opinion. But I'm not going to be led into a non-argument for the sake of being able to disagree with no purpose.

Fwiw, I was a participant on the 'Supplyside forum' for about ten years and so if you have an interest in debating 'trickle down' or 'voodoo' economics then I'm your boy.

So allow me to initiate something here: Point 'B' on the Laffer curve is somewhere close to 80%.

An introduction for you: https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-t...nation-3305566

[DOR]

montgomery,

You have not made any effort whatsoever to define what you mean by “leading economy.” If you can show, for example, that there is good reason to believe that China will be more important as a trade and investment partner for most economies than America is today, that would be pretty compelling. But, remember: most economies, because that’s the benchmark.

China has next to no influence of any kind in Latin America or South America. By way of contrast, the US has dominant – top dog, no joke – influence in both North-east Asia and South-east Asia.

If you really believe China can become the “leading economy” within some reasonable amount of time, then you’ll need to show how it will replace the US in all four of those regions, as well as in Europe, Africa and South Asia.

If you have been practicing economics as a profession, then I would be delighted to hear your views on various subjects. We don’t have many professional economists around here. But, given your choice of sources – globalsecurity, rt, thebalance – I suspect you have an understanding of economics that is limited to what I call “newspaper headline” depth.

Prove me wrong.

[montgomery]

montgomery,

You have not made any effort whatsoever to define what you mean by “leading economy.” If you can show, for example, that there is good reason to believe that China will be more important as a trade and investment partner for most economies than America is today, that would be pretty compelling. But, remember: most economies, because that’s the benchmark.

That which you are trying to pry out of me is just not going to be forthcoming and so I would suggest that you try to explain what you're on about. Could it be that you're trying to hear me put into my own words, the information I've already supplied to you with a link or two?

Maybe try explaining to me why you would think that China is never going to become an economic threat to the US?

China has next to no influence of any kind in Latin America or South America.

Wrong!

By way of contrast, the US has dominant – top dog, no joke – influence in both North-east Asia and South-east Asia.

Right!

If you really believe China can become the “leading economy” within some reasonable amount of time, then you’ll need to show how it will replace the US in all four of those regions, as well as in Europe, Africa and South Asia.

Wrong! No, I don't need to show that. But I could agree that I need to show how China can overtake the US in any one of those regions, And then go on with it's momentum to challenge the US in the rest. What's a 'reasonable amount of time' to you? Some predictions are stating that China's economy will surpass the US's in 15 years. You can suggest that it won't if you like, ore even suggest that it won't make any difference to YOU.

If you have been practicing economics as a profession, then I would be delighted to hear your views on various subjects. We don’t have many professional economists around here. But, given your choice of sources – globalsecurity, rt, thebalance – I suspect you have an understanding of economics that is limited to what I call “newspaper headline” depth.

Economics isn't my profession and so I'm completely open to hearing the opinions of professionals as well as laypersons. But that doesn't mean that I don't have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. And so far in my opinion your posts have demonstrated arrogance and politically motivated chaff.

Prove me wrong.

Suggest something to me that you want proven? Suggest something I've quoted from globalsecurity, rt, thebalance, with which you are not in agreement.

(just keep in mind that if you reference RT.com then I'll have to do likewise) (and the board has already declared immunity from having to suffer their opinion)

So on what would you like me to prove you wrong? Try to be specific and avoid your scattergun approach.

I'll start if you can't: https://www.clingendael.org/publicat...oothold-africa

If you don't like my source then let me know and I'll find another half dozen.

p.s. Something for you to prove or disprove: Point 'B' on the Laffer curve is somewhere close to 80%.

[DOR]

I don't argue with erroneous newspaper headlines.
I make fun of them, and point out their mistakes.

[montgomery]

I don't argue with erroneous newspaper headlines.
I make fun of them, and point out their mistakes.

Colonel Huff has gone off the deep end and so I've had to slap his wrist to calm him down. That's likely to result in us not being able to continue to harangue each other so my apologies for not being able to stick around to finish debating absolutely nothing with you.

[Freyr]

I dont think the world has enough resources to support 1.4 billion Chinese living like 300 million Americans.

But even in the US the top 20% own approx 85% of the wealth, In China its even worse and will continue to be. GDP is irrelevant to most people outside the top 20% and it gets worse the further down the pay scale you go

[montgomery]

But even in the US the top 20% own approx 85% of the wealth, In China its even worse and will continue to be. GDP is irrelevant to most people outside the top 20% and it gets worse the further down the pay scale you go

China has successfully elevated hundreds of millions up out of poverty to a degree that has never been seen before in the history of the world.

Communism is likely the only system that could ever attain that level of success.

Disclaimer: I'm not a communist or a socialist. I'm a Canadian who is totally supportive of my country's system of SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE CAPITALISM.

And I'll assert here that the US system of capitalism is not that. Ask me for the details in a polite way and I'll provide the details of my opinion.

[Freyr]

Chinas success is down to the fact that its a totalitarian system that has embraced capitalism. Its completely corrupt and uses the masses to fund the life styles of the few. Sure they throw the masses a few crumbs but the vast majority are treated like fodder. None of Chinas wealth over the past 30 years would have been created without access to western markets and western business moving there to exploit the low labour costs...Personally I think the west has made a rod for its own back. Yes Millions have been elevated out of poverty...But its got nothing to do with communism. More to do with globalisation and the corporations turning the tables on the Unions in the west

[montgomery]

Chinas success is down to the fact that its a totalitarian system that has embraced capitalism. Its completely corrupt and uses the masses to fund the life styles of the few. Sure they throw the masses a few crumbs but the vast majority are treated like fodder. None of Chinas wealth over the past 30 years would have been created without access to western markets and western business moving there to exploit the low labour costs...Personally I think the west has made a rod for its own back. Yes Millions have been elevated out of poverty...But its got nothing to do with communism. More to do with globalisation and the corporations turning the tables on the Unions in the west

I would certainly agree with the corporations needing to turn the table on the Unions in order to survive. But I don't think the American people are going to ever allow their wages to decline enough to compete with China.

Are we talking now about capitalism's greatest fear and the reason why the Capitalist US can't allow communism or socialism to exist alongside their brand of capitalism?

China has no doubt embraced capitalism to some extent but it's not embracing US style capitalism. Even though there is no pure capitalist or pure socialist country in the world today. All are a blending of the two.

China is beginning to embrace capitalism, as you suggest, but it's more that China is moving toward the model that is the happiest countries in the world.

China's future will undoubtedly depend on limiting the rights of the people as they come to demand more benefits from their labour. China's leg up on the US is in the Chinese people already being conditioned to a bowl of rice, etc., while the US has a population that expects much more.

Trump, as well as Bernie Sanders promised more but Trump llied and is now only intent on fulfilling his corporatist agenda. And as for Bernie, he was ahead of his time because the 1 or 2% would not have allowed such social responsibility to exist in that country.

[Oracle]

China is beginning to embrace capitalism, as you suggest, but it's more that China is moving toward the model that is the happiest countries in the world.

Hahahahahahaha! Damn! Lol. Jeez, can't stop laughing. This has to be the QOTD.

[Freyr]

I'm sure the 1 million Muslims in the Xinjiang region are fully appreciative of their luxury high tech Gulags....Hows their re-education coming along.... are they happy with it?

Communists in their true form hate capitalists because they exploit the masses (according to them). So where as I accept that a socially responsible regime anywhere in the world can work in harmony with a market driven economy. I don't accept that Communism and Capitalism are compatible. What we are experiencing with China is a Totalitarian regime using the levers of it Control systems created by Communists embracing Capitalism to undermine the West and they are doing this with the help of greedy corporate entities who can't see further than the end of their snouts. Its going to end badly unless China becomes more liberal

[MessiahMaitreya]

GDP mean absolutely nothing if your nation got crushed by nature disaster !