Made in China – A State of the Market Report

[Addie Bedford]

Companion forum thread to:

Made in China – A State of the Market Report

[Frederick Heath]

G

I guess I will concede that we are technically both correct. The US Government by definition will always be the biggest holder of its own debt since they are the ones who issue it. The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make is that China(a communist country) is the #1 individual holder of United States debt, and has been for some time. This gives them an incredible amount of financial power over our economic system.

Have a safe 'trip'.

[George Matthews]

A debt is a debt is a debt.

Ironically, we in the US actually should thank China and others like oil exporting countries for helping to fund our past excess in the US. Meanwhile, the US government's printing presses are spitting out tons of dollars. Rather than focusing only on China's large, but not biggest, portion of the $11 trillion, US citizens should learn what our own government is doing to future US generations. This should pi$$ off US citizens much more than China.

Debt to the penny

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

How things can change in forty years..

US Debt August 20009 (Great Recession)

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2009/opds082009.pdf

US Debt August 1969 (Woodstock)

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm081969.pdf

xenophobia
A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

Back to what is important:
Going up the country in about an hour where the water tastes like wine. 'Tripping' only by walking through the mountain air. The best things in life truly are free.

[Arapiles .]

""Will a growing Chinese middle class demand better quality goods along with greater personal freedoms?"

Absolutely. It is already happening on a large scale."

Respectfully disagree. Wealth will not lead to democratisation. In point of fact the most rabid nationalists in China are the educated, internationalised, English-speaking middle class. I did a lot of work for a Chinese company a few years ago and on a trip to Beijing was being driven past the Japanese embassy. The young Chinese colleague I was with proudly pointed out where, as he put it "the patriotic students had demonstrated against Japan" in response to some perceived slight by Japan. He seemed to be unaware that the fact that the Chinese government had allowed a well-organised mob – who were probably members of the army – to damage the Japanese embassy and injure a number of Japanese diplomats was not only a breach of international law but had sparked an international incident. And my colleague speaks excellent English, did a university degree in England and is a Manchester United fan. But he agrees with his government that the Japanese need to be put in their place. But if he wants to go overseas he needs to get an exit visa.

"They leave with a world class education and a good grasp of English. They all bring laptops, cell phones, PDAs, iPODs etc…and are very bright and hard working people. They take on new suggestions and ideas happily and work hard to get a good result. They are just like us."

Actually they are not just like us. When the Olympic torch was travelling through Canberra thousands of Chinese students – English speaking, with good educations etc etc flocked there to "protect" the torch. There was a strong suspicion that the Chinese government organised the busses that they travelled on. While they were there they attacked a number of Australians peacefully demonstrating against China's occupation of Tibet. In their own country, in front of Parliament House. As one of the victims said, they were saying to him – "go home. why are you here? go home."

And I stopped getting work from my main contact at the Chinese company when he realised that that I was a Japanese speaker and that my wife was Japanese.

I was probably lucky that they didn't see the essay that I wrote at Uni on labour standards in Chinese coal mines …

[Frederick Heath]

George,

"A debt is a debt is a debt."

All due respect but this is hardly true, in this case as well as most others.

China is by all accounts I can find the largest individual holder of US debt foreign or domestic. I am not making this up, and anyone can easily research this point as there are countless articles out there from reputable sources. You also need to keep in mind that Hong Kong, which is now part of China holds around $100 billion which is not included with China’s numbers in most lists. We should also be mindful of the fact that many analysts believe that the Chinese government uses other intermediaries(countries) to purchase bonds as well to hide how much they actually own from our government.

China buys our debt to keep control of currency fluctuations. They are able to strengthen the dollar vs. the Chinese Yuan which puts our own exporters at a considerable disadvantage to Chinese exporters. They are not trying to "fund our past excess in the US", they are looking out for themselves. Simple economics. China now has the economic power to cripple our economy and subsequently our country, plain and simple. It remains unlikely that they would given how much they are making off of our consumption of their products. However, the fact that they hold the power should indeed concern us because they are a communist country not a democratic ally.

Cut from a Washington Post article:
"Additionally, the more China invests in U.S. debt, the harder it becomes for U.S. companies to sell their products overseas. That's because China's purchase of U.S. bonds makes the dollar stronger, particularly against the Chinese yuan, which has been kept artificially weak to boost Chinese exports. The relatively weak yuan remains one of the biggest obstacles to U.S. companies tapping the market in China, particularly lucrative now as Beijing embarks on $586 billion in infrastructure(much of this money made off of us) and other stimulus spending to keep its economy humming amid the global crisis.
'This is a sign of the growing interdependence between the Chinese and U.S. economies, but also a sign of a relationship that is not healthy in the long term,' said Eswar Prasad, an economics professor at Cornell University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. 'There are inconsistent policies on both sides of the Pacific that are working against a more flexible Chinese exchange rate and the reduction of China's large trade surplus. This is a problem for the United States.'
Many economists are concerned about U.S. reliance on China for funding. By buying Treasury bonds, which are denominated in dollars, China is able to keep the dollar strong compared with the yuan. As a result, Chinese exports are cheaper relative to U.S. exports.
'This is an unhealthy relationship,' said Brad W. Setser, geoeconomics fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'The U.S. relies too heavily on subsidized financing from a non-democratic government. And China is still a poor country that has in turn invested too much of its national savings in the United States. There remains an underlying financial vulnerability if China were to scale back its purchases. It could deliver a shock to the United States.'"

I completely agree with your concern for our current debt levels, and we should indeed be very concerned about what this will mean for ourselves as well as future generations, but that was not the focus of the original article.

"xenophobia
A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples."

This I just find offensive and really not relevant. We are talking about a specific issue relating to communist countries and the power they now have over our marketplace and economy, not foreigners. If you read my posts more closely you will see that I am encouraging everyone to buy from democratic suppliers, not just domestic "made in America" ones as you are implying.

I have absolutely nothing against any foreigners (my ancestors were foreigners once), but I do have an issue with continuing to allow communist countries to exert so much power over our economic system. My point was that we as individuals can indeed make a difference if we just support our democratic allies rather than spend our money supporting communist countries.

[Lynn Tramper]

"Actually they are not just like us. When the Olympic torch was travelling through Canberra thousands of Chinese students – English speaking, with good educations etc etc flocked there to "protect" the torch. There was a strong suspicion that the Chinese government organised the busses that they travelled on. While they were there they attacked a number of Australians peacefully demonstrating against China's occupation of Tibet. In their own country, in front of Parliament House. As one of the victims said, they were saying to him – "go home. why are you here? go home.""

That is a nationalist issue, nothing to do with personal freedom or democracy. A lot of Chinese are loyal to their country. Their support of China's occupation of Tibet, or their distrust of Japanese, is really no different from many American's supporting the invasion of Iraq, or distrust of Muslims….human bigotry and nationalistic blindness know no international boundaries or political idealism. Governments manipulate the media to supress news they don't want their citizens to know, and highlite the news that makes the government look best. I believe that within Japan, for instance, very few citizens actually know about the Japanese whaling debate. Of course, it's getting harder as the internet and wide-spread learning of English takes hold of the young…I just don't think boycotting alone is the answer. the Chinese need to see the wider picture, and that's not gonna happen by us just walking away and saying "see ya when you clean up you act". Or maybe it will…???

China can and does make good quality products if the right checks and balances are in place. Two years ago I went shopping for a new weed-whacker, determined NOT to buy one made in China as i wanted it to last more than 12 months. To my dismay, there was no such thing locally available, so I chose a Bosch because it came with a 4 year warrantee. Best battery powered tool I've ever owned. But I imagine Bosch go to great pains to make sure their products are made to spec and hopefully under humane working conditions.

[Lynn Tramper]

"I have absolutely nothing against any foreigners (my ancestors were foreigners once), but I do have an issue with continuing to allow communist countries to exert so much power over our economic system. My point was that we as individuals can indeed make a difference if we just support our democratic allies rather than spend our money supporting communist countries."

I respectfully disagree. Communism, as an ideal, is no worse than democracy or capitalism as ideals. In the real world none of them are perfect. Democracy often means that 49% of voters are not represented, and many of the 51% that think they are represented eventually find out they were duped and lied to by the people they voted for. The ideal of equally sharing the wealth of a country is no less noble than the idea of the have-and-have-nots of capitalism. In spite of the communist 'ideal' China is rapidly becoming a capitalist society, and it's actually pretty scary for many Chinese folks who grew up in a stable socialist society; sometimes it feels more like a never ending struggle not to fall behind. I'm sure many Americans can relate to that stress!

[Ross Bleakney]

The problem is not that China is a "communist" country, the problem is that they are not a democracy (or even close to it). Actually, I would say that China is no longer a communist country, as they have no interest anymore in creating a classless society or even reducing the differences in the classes. Part of the reason that the difference between the classes is growing, is that there is no freedom of the press, no freedom of assembly and certainly no ability to choose one's leaders. Without such freedoms, it isn't clear that there will ever be a strong middle class in China. Comparisons to other countries (like Japan) miss that point. Even with those freedoms, it isn't clear that a strong middle class will arise. Remember what brought down the iron curtain? Yes, Gorbachev took power and started Perestroika, but what else? That's right, Lech Walesa's Solidarity movement. Without labor unions, it is really hard to get a strong middle class movement going in any country. In the U.S., we owe a lot to Teddy Roosevelt, who protected the unions against the trusts, and thus helped create the great American middle class (along with his distant relative Franklin who helped create the biggest era of prosperity any country had ever seen). Without these changes, the U.S. might have become a country similar to Mexico — great wealth for a few but great and great poverty for many.

Speaking of Mexico, it is interesting to compare Mexico to South Korea. One hundred years ago, Mexico was much wealthier. About fifty years ago, they were about the same. Now, South Korea is in much better shape. Not only does the average South Korean make much more money than the average Mexican, but the difference between the incomes of the average South Korean is much less than the difference between the incomes of the average Mexican. In other words, South Korea has a much bigger middle class.

This example also points out how difficult it is to predict the future. It is possible that a new Walesa will arise in China and that a strong democratic middle class will come to fruition (as it has in Japan and South Korea). It is also possible that China will become another Mexico, with limited democracy and an almost non-existent middle class.

Personally, I prefer my trade policy to have the following two principles:

1) That it build a strong democratic middle class in the other country. When that occurs, it is only a matter of time before that country catches up to the rest of the strong democratic middle class countries. I don't look to "buy American" but I do like to buy American, Canadian, European, or from any other developed country. I also have no problem with buying from South Korea or from Cambodia (as mentioned earlier). In both those cases the difference between the incomes is big (although rapidly shrinking in the case of South Korea) but in both of those cases the workers have rights, and will eventually have roughly the same income as us. In addition, if the country is a democracy, it is also likely to have strong environmental laws (which are enforced). Not only is this good (overall) but it is fair. Why should a company in a developed country have to apply strong environmental and labor laws while a different country doesn't? How is that fair trade? The answer is it isn't, which is why this principal is important.

2) The trade difference between the two countries does not become too big. This is a trickier point, but basically you don't want an developing country to overwhelm a developed country. This is selfishness (on the part of the developed country) but only temporary selfishness. It is similar to a sensible immigration policy. Closing the borders is rather selfish (and stupid) but completely opening them is also stupid (if the U.S. opened the border to Mexico the income of the average worker would plummet). Something in the middle makes mores sense. This is why slowing down (but not stopping) trade with India makes sense, especially given their relative size.

All of this suggests that trading with China is not generally a good thing. There are also geo-political considerations but I won't go into those.

[Lynn Tramper]

"Personally, I prefer my trade policy to have the following two principles:

1) That it build a strong democratic middle class in the other country…"

That is your choice, but given the current state of the world, it makes no sense to me. China HAS developed a middle class, without democracy. India has a democracy, yet has no middle class. Class and democracy are not so tightly linked as we once may have been taught in the west. And clearly modern communism isn't a big deterrent to class (or wealth) anymore.

As democracies go, the US ranks well down the list in 'best democracies', and America's middle class is in fact very insecure and debt ridden at the moment. It's really a 'virtual' middle class if you take assets against debts. The Scandanavian countries are at the top of democracy and class by a long lead. I think before we erroneously boycott all things Chinese because of concerns over democracy and class (or communism), we should look at home first. Fix our own democracies first before we start forcing it on other countries. China is doing just fine, their middle class is 'real' (ie not based on aquiring luxury goods by debt) and has a very healthy domestic and international market, and a burgeoning middle class.

"2) The trade difference between the two countries does not become too big."

This I agree with, and it should go both ways. No one individual, institution or country should get so inextricably in debt to another individual, institution or country that it leads to their ultimate demise. This is "common" sense which has virtually eluded a whole generation of westerners.

[Brian UL]

Just to be clear America is not really a "Democracy"
We are a Democratic Republic
-big difference in that democracy is just mob rule, nothing more. It doesn't guarantee any freedoms or rights its just a tool in a system of checks and balances. the Laws our Republic are built upon are what guarantee our freedoms democracy is just another way to help conserve them.

[Miguel Arboleda]

Very interesting and surprisingly civil and informed discussion. I held off on commenting since I feared the usual American diatribe about undeserving Chinese and how Americans are entitled to everything. Pretty hard stuff to swallow when you're not American and don't live in the States. But there was little of that here and people seem genuinely interested in hearing one another's opinions. Very refreshing.

A note about Japan just after the Second World War: in the rush to develop their economy and rebuild the country there was very little thought given to working conditions and people's health. Witness the Minamata incident, where the Minamata River was poisoned by allowing factory discharges of mercury into the water. Hundreds of people became horribly disfigured and died from Minamata Disease. This happened all over Japan. When I first moved here in 1969 the evidence of factories everywhere and polluted rivers and cloyingly thick smogged out city air was a fact of life only just starting to be addressed then. I used to go down to the rivers and see nothing but dead fish on the banks. It was very much like China is today, except China is on a vastly larger scale. Every winter the erosion of the plains and mountains along the Yellow RIver is so gigantic that huge clouds of dust sweep over Korea and Japan and cover everything in grit. Last year South Korea had to close down all their schools for a week because the dust was so bad.

China is very aware of the problems, just as the American government was aware of the problems during the Dust Bowl in Oklahoma and such. It's just such an enormous problem that it is very hard to deal with. China needs time.

This I agree with, and it should go both ways. No one individual, institution or country should get so inextricably in debt to another individual, institution or country that it leads to their ultimate demise. This is "common" sense which has virtually eluded a whole generation of westerners.

As an added comment, no individual, institution, or country should go without the improvement in lifestyle or living conditions that so many of the richer nations take for granted or seem to feel entitled to. The way I see it, perhaps there should be a give and take: perhaps Americans taking on more of the cheaper labor and "dirty" jobs so that more Chinese people can have better lives. I mean why should only Americans get the good jobs and live the lives of plenty? Since there are limited resources everything should be fairly shared. We no longer live in a world where one country exists without the contribution of others. It's one world and we need to start to learn how to think "one economy".

[Lynn Tramper]

" Since there are limited resources everything should be fairly shared. "

" perhaps Americans taking on more of the cheaper labor and "dirty" jobs so that more Chinese people can have better lives"

Oh Horror Miguel, everyone will now think you're a Communist ;) JK

"It's just such an enormous problem that it is very hard to deal with. China needs time."

Yeah, that said what I was trying to say in a nice succinct manner. This also applies to the transition from a communist economy/mindset to a capitalist economy/mindset when you are dealing with over a billion people. Same goes with "democracy". China now has tens of thousands of semi-democratic local elections, but full democracy is not something you can just wave a wand and suddenly make it happen. China is a huge area encompassing many very differing regional ethnicities and cultures. Democracy is not so easy in a situation like this.

I think the old slogan of "think globally, act locally" is still a good one. That means that I will buy from my next door neighbor first, then from my local community, then from my country, then from geographically close countries, then elsewhere such as China, Europe or USA, in that order of preference and assuming the goods are of similar quality and function. Of course, the UL market is pretty small, and often narrows the choices down to USA, Europe or China…or MYOG. But even MYOG usually require me to import the raw materials :(

[Tohru Ohnuki]

Beware of these fake signal mirrors:
WARNING: Phony Glass Signal Mirrors

[Ross Bleakney]

"That is your choice, but given the current state of the world, it makes no sense to me. China HAS developed a middle class, without democracy. India has a democracy, yet has no middle class."

I'm not sure why you say that. By most measures, India is more equitable economy than China:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Also, to quote the economist:
"CHINA can be justly proud of having lifted some 400m people out of poverty in the last quarter of a century. But at the same time it has produced income inequalities that are among the fastest-growing in the world. These are not just the natural consequences of China's impressive growth. They are symptomatic of barriers to labour mobility and other legacies of the old planned economy that could put a brake on the country's development in the coming years."

I think these are also symptomatic of a corrupt, authoritarian regime. This is true of many corrupt, authoritarian regimes, whether they call themselves "communist" or not. It is typical of most third world countries, which generally strengthens your argument (wait until they get more money, then they become more equitable). I just wanted to mention Mexico as a country which has plenty of wealth, but very little equity.

"Class and democracy are not so tightly linked as we once may have been taught in the west. And clearly modern communism isn't a big deterrent to class (or wealth) anymore."

I'm sure what you are talking about there. I don't know about you, but I'm from "the west" and I wasn't taught to link class and democracy. I was taught to analyze situations and make my own linkages. I don't think there is a huge linkage between communist countries and class. I would say that there is strong relationship between wealthy countries and equality (the third world has the most inequality) but I think there are plenty of interesting exceptions. That is why I mentioned the comparison between Mexico and South Korea. Another interesting country to look at is Cuba (one of the few true communist countries left). While I wouldn't want to live there, it has less inequality than China.

"As democracies go, the US ranks well down the list in 'best democracies', and America's middle class is in fact very insecure and debt ridden at the moment. It's really a 'virtual' middle class if you take assets against debts. The Scandanavian countries are at the top of democracy and class by a long lead."

No argument there. When Reagan was elected, a friend of mine said he feared we would become a "Mexican economy". I had no idea what he was talking about at the time, but the more I looked into it, the more I realized he was right. While we haven't slipped to that level yet, we certainly have gone downhill in the last 30 years. I also agree that Scandinavian countries are a good model.

"I think before we erroneously boycott all things Chinese because of concerns over democracy and class (or communism), we should look at home first. Fix our own democracies first before we start forcing it on other countries. China is doing just fine, their middle class is 'real' (ie not based on acquiring luxury goods by debt) and has a very healthy domestic and international market, and a burgeoning middle class."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. Yes, we should look at home and try and fix things (I do that sort of thing quite a bit) but I don't think we should ignore injustice when it occurs in other countries. I'm not saying that boycotting will even be effective (which is why I said "trade policy") but it is why protectionist measures against China make sense to me given the state of things there. In some ways, this sort of argument occurred around a hundred years ago in the U.S. regarding unions. By some measure, laws protecting unions simply get in the way of capitalism. The people in non-union shops just want to work, right? They are happy to be making 2 cents more an hour in their 70 hour a week job (beats working in the fields). The flaw in that argument, of course, is that without legal protection, the workers can't organize. Without organizing, there may not have been a strong middle class in this country. Since the Chinese have little legal protection in this regard (the leader of China was number 1 on Parade magazines 10 worst dictators a while back) I think it is quite possible that things will not get better. I think it is quite possible that China will muddle along, Mexican style, for a long time.

Also, just to be clear: when I say "democratic" or "democracy" I don't mean that policy is set by direct voting. My definition is rather loose, but I mean that rule is by the consent of the governed. Obviously, there is more to it than that (the rights of the minority are in many ways more important than majority rule) but thats the main gist of it. Of course, their are many levels of democratic rule (by some measure, the U.S. isn't doing to well since Gore got a plurality of the votes) but I think no one would argue that China is more democratic than the U.S. (or India for that matter).

[Arapiles .]

"That is a nationalist issue, nothing to do with personal freedom or democracy. A lot of Chinese are loyal to their country."

That is right, but the idea that the emergence of a Chinese middle class will lead to China democratising is naive. What you have actually ended up with is educated, internationalised, nationalistic bigots who are not at all interested in democracy. The Chinese "liberals" at Tiannamen Square were academics and students, not the newly rich.

"Governments manipulate the media to supress news they don't want their citizens to know, and highlite the news that makes the government look best. I believe that within Japan, for instance, very few citizens actually know about the Japanese whaling debate."

The Chinese government has absolute and complete control of its media and does not permit dissent. At all. There is no independent media. The Japanese government does not control the media in Japan and despite strong societal mores there are media avenues for the stories that are otherwise taboo – for example, the Crown Princess's mental illness. Japan is a free country and there really isn't any comparison between Japan and China in that respect. And the whale debate is well-known: I think Westerners confuse disinterest with ignorance.

[Arapiles .]

"India has a democracy, yet has no middle class."

Beg to disagree again. India has a very large middle-class, roughly 30 times larger than NZ's entire population.

[Robert Brookshire]

Deleted this post because it was more about energy economics than Chimerican manufacturing. I also wrote it poorly and feel terrible about it.
-Mr. Obvious

[Anonymous]

"Thank you for your time and patience. I pray that each of you find productive, fulfilling livelihood in order to support yourself and your family. Grow a garden, empower others, and create real democracy by taking power away from rich people and corporations by reducing your own dependence upon their products and services, most of which are propagandized wants rather than real needs. Buying stuff creates poverty, not wealth, and this rabbit hole goes further down than most people alive today can even imagine."

Thank you, Robert, for taking the time and energy to put this on the forum. Hopefully it'll get people thinking, which is where the solution(s) must originate.

In your own search for solutions, might I recommend a book to you: "Steady State Economics" by Herman Daly. He's one of a few people that have been thinking about this problem for quite some time. Among other things, he gets into the thermodynamic dead end inherent in our current system, as well as offering one possible solution. It's an interesting read.

Thanks again for posting.

Tom

[Miguel Arboleda]

Robert, that was a very well-reasoned and clearly-put comment about our state of affairs in the world today. Doubtless someone will find something to argue about, but personally I think you expressed exactly what needs to be openly said and discussed among all people in the world today.

The only thing I would add something to was to your quote: Mr. Joe McSwiney, President of Cascade Designs Inc, was quoted as saying:
"The root cause of environmental damage is consumerism, and the root cause of consumerism is how our culture employs its surplus over the base needs of food and shelter to self-actualize."

The root cause of consumerism is greed, and the belief that owning things, including land, will bring contentedness and satiation. But it doesn't. When you own one thing so many of us today want more. And more. And more. That's what "shopping" is all about. The danger is that the marketing people have tied this to our basic animal survival instinct to go out and gather, and unless we consciously will ourselves to avoid this temptation in a world of plenty we will continue to consume at unprecedented levels. I always find it weirdly ironic that so many wealthy CEO's talk like Mr. McSwiney, but don't actually stop creating the consumer items that he criticizes. Yvon Chouinard is the same… if these people actually practiced what they said they would actively be closing down their huge and profitable businesses and stop contributing to the environmental damage. But they don't, do they? They're just as much caught in the trap as everyone else. Doubtless they have some well thought-out, and amply logical excuses to counter my words, but there you go.

What is funny is that right here on BPL the most common and passionate forum is one that is purely based on consumerism: the G-Spot. And the way we bashfully joke about not being able to stop piling up gear in our closets further attests to our madness. Of all people, we who supposedly spend so much time in "the Better World" ought to understand what our greed means, and yet we can't stop either. THAT is the root cause of environmental damage (and incidentally a lot of our health issues), this insatiable hunger for more, when we know we should stop.

[Dean F.]

>> You’re all smart people, so please study and think about this for yourselves.

You know, I always find it INCREDIBLY condescending anytime someone who thinks he has all the answers tells me to "think about it." Just a personal peeve of mine. Anyone else?

First, an incredibly minor and persnickety point: I also read all those articles in Economist and FP etc., and Handyside wasn't saying that consumerism creates wealth. The proposition was that consumerism drives our economy- which it does. Unfortunately. The point that consumerism as it is currently practiced in the West is unsustainable (using non-renewable energy) is a different issue.

>> Many of you will sneer at my claims and wonder at my sanity when my arguments run so directly counter to everything you’ve been taught to believe

A perfect example of how you do NOT have all the answers. You definitely don't know your audience, here. Most of us, I think, would basically agree with you. The realization that cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels is creating an artificial economic boom is not new. OTOH if you can come up with a SOLUTION then I would be impressed. Personally I'm at a loss. It's a tough problem. Frankly, I don't want my standard of living to plummet, either, and I'm pretty anti-consumerism and anti-materialism as it is…

>> Please feel free to take the red pill and rediscover the real world with your own critical thinking skills,

Wow, Robert, that's another rather annoying and condescending phraseology. (And yet more proof that you don't know your audience, here- witness that the previous two posts agreed with you, as do I, basically.) Do you honestly believe that other people don't think? To borrow your rather arrogant and abrasive tone: NEWS FLASH you aren't telling anyone anything new. I hope you don't believe that this thinking is original or something.

I of course agree with your analysis, particularly that it all comes down to energy, but, wow, could you be any more self-important and abrasive? (I painted a rather bleak post-oil picture on this forum a while ago.) Idealists such as yourself REALLY need to learn to communicate better, and preferably in a not so insulting tone.

So, anyway, I guess my advice is simply to learn to clean up your tone a bit. You'll be much more successful in convincing the uninitiated. I learned something a long time ago- when you pi$$ people off they stop listening to you. (Sometimes I stumble, too…) Hopefully I haven't just stumbled into the same mistake by being so frankly critical with you, but I figured that if you were dishing it out then you could take it. :o)

(It also helps if on occasion you're not preaching to the choir. Groupthink is dangerous.)

More to the point- what the heck does that have to do with trading with China?

[Miguel Arboleda]

Oy Weh, Dean. Was it necessary to voice so much anger, at such length? A little grain of salt wouldn't hurt. It's only an online discussion, for Pete's sake. And you know how online discussions can so easily be bent out of shape. You're both right. Isn't that enough?

[Dean F.]

Yeah, I kind of realized that upon re-reading. I'm working on editing to tone it down. (I find myself doing that a lot- but at least I DO tone it down.) But only a little- my annoyance with the "think about it" crud is VERY real. After all, I'm right. It is a very condescending thing to say. It is MUCH better to say "I think…" or to otherwise just state your position.

And you said I'm voicing anger? I intend, at most, voicing intense annoyance, and perhaps a little offense. Which is an accurate description of my reaction to that post. I don't like being talked down to, particularly by someone who is telling me something obvious that I already know. If he hadn't used that tone I would probably have responded with a +1, or more likely not at all.

And I don't think I'm misinterpreting Robert's tone, either. I do try to take into account how easy it is to misinterpret via this medium, but I thought the condescension was obvious.

OTOH, Robert, if you merely had a bad day and vomited that diatribe onto the screen without really thinking about it, well, sorry. I've been there.

EDIT—

Is that better, or should I tone it down even more?

[Roger Caffin]

I just took it as one person's point of view, nothing more.
Obviously, anyone who writes such a long posting feels pretty strongly about the matter, which usually means a bit of soapbox. That's OK – it was all very polite.

I am interested that so many agree with the problem.

Cheers

[Franco Darioli]

We definitely have a problem. Can someone please send me a PM when you find a solution ?
Thanks in advance
Franco

[Anonymous]

"We definitely have a problem. Can someone please send me a PM when you find a solution ?"

Relax Franco, Mother Nature has the solution well in hand.

[Author]

Posts