Chinese General Threatens U.S. Over Taiwan

Stand back. We agree!

Um why pay off China?

Are we in debt to China? Or do we have a Trade imbalance?

A Trade Imbalance you dont "Pay off"

If we actually owe them money .. thast a bit different.

I am sorry I swear I saw some on here say we owed them money. I didn’t under stand that but thought they know something I didn’t because no one else commented. OK my bad. Still works well. Pay bills. If China wants to go in tell people we are paying to pressure china not to or we will end up going to war and no able to pay them. Still works just in a different way.

Both, actually. The Chinese central bank holds billions in U.S. Treasury securities (Federal government debt which we pay off according to the terms of those securities, just like the bonds that American investors can buy). And we have a big trade deficit, which results from America buying a lot more from China than we sell to China.

The trade deficit isn't a debt, per se, but unless it's balanced with big trade surpluses in other markets, it bodes ill for American industries.

hmmm okay so China owns a lot of Treasury securties - is it possible to "pay these off" or are we basically stuck paying off under set terms?

yes The US has a bit of a trade problem with many countries and has for some time.

I'm not an expert, but I think that the issuer of a bond is stuck with the terms of the bond. Otherwise, who would want to buy one? Having a portion of your portfolio liquidated without your consent could trigger big problems.

Yes, it is a semantical, or semantic-like at least, argument... you're using this "official/technical" meaning of the word, and I'm using the "casual/more often used" meaning. The meaning that 90% of the population would probably tend to use. Just last night I heard the phrase "the world's SUPERPOWERS" to describe the nations fighting in WWII for a documentary. The "official" definition (which isn't the in the dictionary I looked at) is STUPID, in my opinion, and serves no useful purpose. I don't care who endorses it. (The government is also still telling people to "get down on the ground so the blast passes over you" in the event of a nuclear attack, and implying that the RIAA's "estimated losses" are accurate, too.)

Maybe we don't agree about the threat of China and NK, but let me clarify. I do think the USSR was a greater threat, HOWEVER China and NK at the present seem much more stable and well established than the Soviet Union was. This is why I consider them worse opponents--they seem like they will last longer. China's territory is "mostly theirs" where the USSR occupied alot of other "satellite" nations, etc.

And the Russians at least seemed to have some sanity about them, but these other two seem lacking that same level of reason (this is aimed more at NK). And, I think the populations of China and NK are more firmly behind their governments, at least for now. Either that or they are fooling the outside world pretty damn well.

I did not intend to accuse you of defending Japan's WWII actions, if you took it that way, I take whatever I said back. (Too lazy to go read thread again.)

Now, if we're through flinging wads of semantical monkey shit at one another, I suggest we let this piece of shit thread get back "on topic" (whatever the hell that means) so that it may continue it's downward spiral into flame war and oblivion on it's own.

I think the trade deficit problem is more of a capitalism/macroeconomic problem than it is a government policy problem. I think...

Governments negotiate trade-related treaties, as well as set currency and excise / tariff policies that have a huge impact on international trade. For instance, the Chinese have undervalued their currency for years, making Chinese goods artificially cheaper than Western goods, forcing many US companies to outsource mfg, altogether...

There is always a way around them. If we go to war with China it would not be unheard of to ask for money to end the war. We could ask for the same amount that the bonds are for. There is always a way, but to do so means we have to be paying them and not giving our money away.

Yeah, I'm sure there's major effects government can have... but I'm not sure if any of those effects are really that much better than the alternatives. You can try and convince me otherwise, it's been so long since I've learned about the topic I've forgotten most of what I knew anyway.

I think the bigger problem is simply the huge overall differences in our economies. i.e. We're shifting to what they call a "service economy"...I guess.