Comments by "D W" (@DW-op7ly) on "Japan Pulls Off an Early Chip Victory" video.

  1. 11
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. How is it misleading? They are adding to their wealth even with a Government initiated slow down that actually started in 2010 In China in 2008 around 70% of the people in their real estate markets were buying their 1st homes in their cities By 2018 around 70% of the people in their real estate markets were buying their 2nd and 3rd homes in their cities That’s why you are hearing about problems with their property developers these days. Because back in 2010? Their Central Government started cutting of money flow to these developers. Thus why you heard about Shadow Banks and Underground Economy back then, that their Government had to come into to shutdown or regulate. Even then, It took them almost 14 years to get their overheated real estate under control Heck they were about to introduce a nation wide property tax, but then trump started the trade war in 2018 Why is their Central Government doing this? Because there are still a few hundred million poorer rural folk they still expect to move to the cities to join their more well off urban city folk countrymen. Problem is these property developers were building higher end homes, and not building the affordable homes these rural migrants will need In China Owning a home in the city you migrate to? Affects your employment, health, education and even marriage prospects don’t have a house you don’t get married Thus the common prosperity push and the crackdown on the overt displays of wealth in China Their Government probably figured out you disenfranchise the people at the bottom of your society they are the ones most likely to act out in protest
    1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. Dude your more well off friends sucks for them….but they took a risk In China in 2008 around 70% of the people in their real estate markets were buying their 1st homes in their cities By 2018 around 70% of the people in their real estate markets were buying their 2nd and 3rd homes in their cities That’s why you are hearing about problems with their property developers these days. Because back in 2010? Their Central Government started cutting of money flow to these developers. Thus why you heard about Shadow Banks and Underground Economy back then, that their Government had to come into to shutdown or regulate. Even then, It took them almost 14 years to get their overheated real estate under control Heck they were about to introduce a nation wide property tax, but then trump started the trade war in 2018 Why is their Central Government doing this? Because there are still a few hundred million poorer rural folk they still expect to move to the cities to join their more well off urban city folk countrymen. Problem is these property developers were building higher end homes, and not building the affordable homes these rural migrants will need In China Owning a home in the city you migrate to? Affects your employment, health, education and even marriage prospects don’t have a house you don’t get married Thus the common prosperity push and the crackdown on the overt displays of wealth in China Their Government probably figured out you disenfranchise the people at the bottom of your society they are the ones most likely to act out in protest
    1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. Why did they do this because they are use to the American Government bailing out private corporations and sticking that internal debt converted into external sovereign debt onto you the American taxpayer 👇 As politicians call for taxpayer bailouts and a government takeover of troubled mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, FreedomWorks would like to point out that a bailout is a transfer of possibly hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars to sophisticated investors and governments overseas. The top five foreign holders of Freddie and Fannie long-term debt are China, Japan, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, and Belgium. In total foreign investors hold over $1.3 trillion in these agency bonds, according to the U.S. Treasury’s most recent “Report on Foreign Portfolio Holdings of U.S. Securities.” FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe commented, “The prospectus for every GSE bond clearly states that it is not backed by the United States government. That’s why investors holding agency bonds already receive a significant risk premium over Treasuries.” “A bailout at this stage would be the worst possible outcome for American taxpayers and mortgage holders, who have been paying a risk premium to these foreign investors. It would change the rules of the game retroactively and would directly subsidize the risks taken by sophisticated foreign investors.” “A bailout of GSE bondholders would be perhaps the greatest taxpayer rip-off in American history. It is bad economics and you can be sure it is terrible politics.” FreedomWorks
    1
  24. Nothing wrong with having debt It’s if you can pay it off or not That US external Sovereign Debt you can’t just sweep under the table And America has shown they have no problem converting internal debt into external debt As for what the Chinese do with their internal debt? 👇 China's Creative Accounting: How It Buried Its Debt and Forged Ahead with Stimulus What is China's secret? According to financial commentator Jim Jubak, it may just be "creative accounting" -- the sort of accounting for which Wall Street is notorious, in which debts are swept off the books and turned into "assets." China is able to pull this off because it does not owe its debts to foreign creditors. The banks doing the funding are state-owned, and the state can write off its own debts. Jubak observes: China has a history of taking debt off its books and burying it, which should prompt us to poke and prod its numbers. If we go back to the last time China cooked the national books big time, during the Asian currency crisis of 1997, we can get an idea of where its debt might be hidden now. The majority of bank loans, says Jubak, went to state-owned companies -- about 70% of the total. The collapse of China's export trade following the crisis meant that its banks were suddenly sitting on billions in debts that were clearly never going to be paid. But that was when China's largest banks were trying to raise capital by selling stock in Hong Kong and New York, and no bank could go public with that much bad debt on its books. The creative solution? The Beijing government set up special-purpose asset management companies for the four largest state-owned banks, the equivalent of the "special purpose vehicles" designed by Wall Street to funnel real estate loans off U.S. bank books. The Chinese entities ultimately bought $287 billion in bad loans from state-owned banks. To pay for the loans, they issued bonds to the banks, on which they paid interest. The state-owned banks thus got $287 billion in toxic debt off their books and turned the bad loans into an income stream from the bonds. Sound familiar? Wall Street did the same thing in the 2008 bailout, with the U.S. government underwriting the deal. The difference was that China's largest banks were owned by the government, so the government rather than a private banking cartel got the benefit of the arrangement. According to British economist Samah El-Shahat, writing in Al Jazeera in August 2009: China hasn't allowed its banking sector to become so powerful, so influential, and so big that it can call the shots or highjack the bailout. In simple terms, the government preferred to answer to its people and put their interests first before that of any vested interest or group. And that is why Chinese banks are lending to the people and their businesses in record numbers. In the US and UK, by contrast: banks have captured all the money from the taxpayers and the cheap money from quantitative easing from central banks. They are using it to shore up, and clean up their balance sheets rather than lend it to the people. The money has been hijacked by the banks, and our governments are doing absolutely nothing about that. In fact, they have been complicit in allowing this to happen. HuffPost
    1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. Btw you are not a real American you ran away as the NVA won the war These days ethnic Chinese dominate the Vietnamese economy and Vietnam is dependent on the Chinese economy Plus they have 1 big ace up their sleeve 👇 Weaponizing Water: How China Controls the Mekong Despite these record lows for the Mekong river in Southeast Asia, the upper Mekong in China’s Yunnan province received above-normal rainfall. Even though climate change does play a role in the Mekong’s fading banks, it is the construction of dams, not a lack of rain, that is most detrimental. As of now, China has completed 11 dams with many more at various levels of planning and competition. Laos has two operational dams on the river with plans to build at least seven more while Cambodia has two in various stages of construction. The dams in both Laos and Cambodia are financially backed by China through its Belt and Road Initiative and intend to export much of this electricity to China. This shows China’s influence and determination to produce electricity from the river at any cost and its ability to pressure other nations, whose people want the river undammed, to comply. Through the damming of the Mekong, China is using what has been termed “hydro-diplomacy” to exert control over Southeast Asia, bringing the threat of further economic and environmental ruin to its southern neighbors. With China’s dams in the Yunnan province alone, China can withhold some 47 million cubic meters of water from flowing downstream. This has the potential to cripple the lifeline of much of Southeast Asia in one swing which China both knows and utilizes to influence the region — especially when it comes to exerting power over America. DavisPoliticalReview
    1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. Here is the long version Which you can search up the article 👇 China's Creative Accounting: How It Buried Its Debt and Forged Ahead with Stimulus What is China's secret? According to financial commentator Jim Jubak, it may just be "creative accounting" -- the sort of accounting for which Wall Street is notorious, in which debts are swept off the books and turned into "assets." China is able to pull this off because it does not owe its debts to foreign creditors. The banks doing the funding are state-owned, and the state can write off its own debts. Jubak observes: China has a history of taking debt off its books and burying it, which should prompt us to poke and prod its numbers. If we go back to the last time China cooked the national books big time, during the Asian currency crisis of 1997, we can get an idea of where its debt might be hidden now. The majority of bank loans, says Jubak, went to state-owned companies -- about 70% of the total. The collapse of China's export trade following the crisis meant that its banks were suddenly sitting on billions in debts that were clearly never going to be paid. But that was when China's largest banks were trying to raise capital by selling stock in Hong Kong and New York, and no bank could go public with that much bad debt on its books. The creative solution? The Beijing government set up special-purpose asset management companies for the four largest state-owned banks, the equivalent of the "special purpose vehicles" designed by Wall Street to funnel real estate loans off U.S. bank books. The Chinese entities ultimately bought $287 billion in bad loans from state-owned banks. To pay for the loans, they issued bonds to the banks, on which they paid interest. The state-owned banks thus got $287 billion in toxic debt off their books and turned the bad loans into an income stream from the bonds. Sound familiar? Wall Street did the same thing in the 2008 bailout, with the U.S. government underwriting the deal. The difference was that China's largest banks were owned by the government, so the government rather than a private banking cartel got the benefit of the arrangement. According to British economist Samah El-Shahat, writing in Al Jazeera in August 2009: China hasn't allowed its banking sector to become so powerful, so influential, and so big that it can call the shots or highjack the bailout. In simple terms, the government preferred to answer to its people and put their interests first before that of any vested interest or group. And that is why Chinese banks are lending to the people and their businesses in record numbers. In the US and UK, by contrast: banks have captured all the money from the taxpayers and the cheap money from quantitative easing from central banks. They are using it to shore up, and clean up their balance sheets rather than lend it to the people. The money has been hijacked by the banks, and our governments are doing absolutely nothing about that. In fact, they have been complicit in allowing this to happen. HuffPost
    1
  31. First you need to type into a search the difference between internal debt and external debt 👇 Difference Between Internal Debt and External Debt! The basic character of an internal debt is quite different from that of the external debt. In external debt, at the time of repayment there is a real transfer of resources. In case of internal debt, however, since it is borrowed from individuals and institutions within the country repayment will constitute only a re-distribution of resources without causing any change in the total resources of the community. There can, thus, be no direct money burden caused by internal debts since all payments cancel each other out in the aggregate community as a whole. Whatever is taxed from one section of the community servicing the debts is distributed among the bond-holders by way of repayment of loans and interest; and quite often, the tax-payer and the bond-holder may be the same person. At the most, to the extent that the incomes of tax-payers (in a sense, debtors) are reduced, so will the incomes of creditors/ bond-holders increase, but the aggregate position of the community will, nevertheless, remain the same. However, internal debt may involve a direct real burden on the community according to the nature of the series of transfer of incomes from tax payers to the public creditors. To the extent the tax-payers and the bond-holders are the same, the distribution of wealth will remain unaltered; hence there will not be any net real burden on the community. Yourarticlelibrary
    1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. In Defense of Socialism, 1990–1991 After the collapse of socialist regimes in Eastern Europe, the VCP chief and defense minister sought an ideological alliance with China. As Party Chief Nguyen Van Linh explained to the Chineseambassador to Vietnam on June 5, 1990, the situation was marked by the West’s offensive to eliminate socialismand concurrently the difficulties of the Soviet Union in defending socialism. In this situation, Linh concluded, “China should raise high the banner of socialism and stick to Marxism-Leninism.” Linh and Defense Minister Le Duc Anh hoped that Chinawould take the leadership of the world’s socialist forces; they indicated to the ambassador that they were ready to meet Chinese leaders to discuss solidarity between the two states to fight imperialism. . . On September 2 that year, Vietnam’s Independence Day, the party and government chiefs did not stay in Hanoi to celebrate the 45th birthday of their state but instead flew to Chengdu, China, for a secret summit with Chineseleaders, the first since the mid-1970s. The Vietnamese understood that their acceptance of the time, place, and participants was a sign of deference to China. Participants included Vietnam’s elder statesman Pham Van Dong but not China’s paramount leader Deng Xiaoping; Foreign Minister Thach was excluded. During the meeting, the Vietnamese also let the Chinesedictate the terms of negotiation;this should be seen against the background of a decade-long hostility between the two countries. . . The Vietnamese had urgent reasons for taking this approach. At the time, the counterweight of the Soviet Union was no longer available and Vietnam was still isolated, regionally and globally. In China, Vietnam faced a disproportionately powerful neighbor, and in order to prevent Chinese aggression, Hanoi had to pay deference to Beijing. It appeared to be the calculation of Pham Van Dong and, to some extent, Prime Minister Do Muoi. Yet, as discussed above, General Secretary Nguyen Van Linh had different concerns and priorities. His primary intention at Chengdu was to discuss how to protect socialism from the West, led by the United States. Although the Chinese refused to play the solidarity game, Linh and his successors over the next decade kept trying to reestablish the Sino-Vietnamese relationship on an ideological basis. scribd
    1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. Looks like China could almost pay off its “External” debt on the books, with the loans it has given out to other countries depending on how much loans they have given out and are hiding from us 👇 How Much Money Does the World Owe China? Our research, based on a comprehensive new data set, shows that China has extended many more loans to developing countries than previously known. This systematic underreporting of Chinese loans has created a “hidden debt” problem – meaning that debtor countries and international institutions alike have an incomplete picture on how much countries around the world owe to China and under which conditions. In total, the Chinese state and its subsidiaries have lent about $1.5 trillion in direct loans and trade credits to more than 150 countries around the globe. This has turned China into the world’s largest official creditor — surpassing traditional, official lenders such as the World Bank, the IMF, or all OECD creditor governments combined. Despite the large size of China’s overseas lending boom, no official data exists on the resulting debt flows and stocks. China does not report on its international lending, and Chinese loans literally fall through the cracks of traditional data-gathering institutions. For example, credit rating agencies, such as Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s, or data providers, such as Bloomberg, focus on private creditors, but China’s lending is state sponsored, and therefore off their radar screen. Debtor countries themselves often do not collect data on debt owed by state-owned companies, which are the main recipients of Chinese loans. In addition, China is not a member of the Paris Club (an informal group of creditor nations) or the OECD, both of which collect data on lending by official creditors. HarvardBusinessReview
    1
  40. 1
  41. Here is the truth Take for example if China cut off the essential ingredients that go into the world’s pharmaceutical drugs going into Medicine you probably take like Alzheimer’s, Diabetes, Heart disease, Cancer drugs, painkillers etc etc etc etc Old timers like you would for sure be dropping like flies within months if not weeks But let’s hope for a crash in that country When it was Conservative Americans like you who Pushed for Globalization, Free Trade and for China to open up Shot down the voices like mine who warned about a CCP China in the 1980s But then you were in the China can’t do this or that crowd nothing to worry about China about to crash And are still doing today Like the fake narratives you try to push these days It’s Conservative Americans like you trying to pish. It was the Democrats who wanted to offshore the union jobs of their voting base back then 🙄 These days are just acting like the suddenly wh oke snow fl akes you di slike so much Typing on your Chinese made gadget 👇 Remarks at a White House Meeting With Business and Trade Leaders September 23, 1985 Thank you very much, and welcome to the White House. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to be with you to address the pressing question of America's trade challenge for the eighties and beyond. And let me say at the outset that our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets -- free trade. I, like you, recognize the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for human progress and peace among nations . Reagan library
    1
  42. 1