Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
We Have a "Paying For It Problem"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="contango" data-source="post: 62481763" data-attributes="member: 265412"><p>How do you define "playing fair"? Our interests aren't their interests and they will look after their own interests just as we (in theory at least) look after ours.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure if you're seriously suggesting that if we pay China $1m for a boatload of plastic doodads we should expect China in return to give us the $1m back in exchange for $50,000 worth of medicines just because "that's what they can pay", although reading your posts I can't be entirely sure. If that is what you're suggesting I can't see China being overly keen on the idea.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately when an economy is based on consumers borrowing and spending but doesn't make any of the things they buy the inevitable result is that the borrowed money floods out of the country, ending up in the countries that actually make the stuff people want to buy, and a trade deficit accumulates. Shifting the economy so it isn't so heavily focussed on debt would be a good thing, it's just a question of how (and whether) to ease the financial pain of those who bought assets with debt only to watch their value plummet as lenders use criteria more rigorous than "check species, check pulse, approve loan".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="contango, post: 62481763, member: 265412"] How do you define "playing fair"? Our interests aren't their interests and they will look after their own interests just as we (in theory at least) look after ours. I'm not sure if you're seriously suggesting that if we pay China $1m for a boatload of plastic doodads we should expect China in return to give us the $1m back in exchange for $50,000 worth of medicines just because "that's what they can pay", although reading your posts I can't be entirely sure. If that is what you're suggesting I can't see China being overly keen on the idea. Ultimately when an economy is based on consumers borrowing and spending but doesn't make any of the things they buy the inevitable result is that the borrowed money floods out of the country, ending up in the countries that actually make the stuff people want to buy, and a trade deficit accumulates. Shifting the economy so it isn't so heavily focussed on debt would be a good thing, it's just a question of how (and whether) to ease the financial pain of those who bought assets with debt only to watch their value plummet as lenders use criteria more rigorous than "check species, check pulse, approve loan". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
We Have a "Paying For It Problem"
Top
Bottom