The same old mistake all over again

Taiwan would lose half its population and China less than .1% in such a war. Taiwan would lose its economy, China less than .1%. Is Taiwan really going to oppose the invasion? Is dead better than red?
An independent Taiwan represents a major competitor to China. An annexed Taiwan represents an important increase in industrial, research and military capacity and a vital location for expansion in the Pacific.
North Korea and China can easily invade South Korea. Is the average AMerican willing to go to war against both contries to save South Korea?

Clinton sent 2 carriers at a time when America was much stronger and China much weaker, two decades later it is doubtful that Obama would be allowed to do the same and that China would pay any attention to the carriers (being there doesn't mean they will attack, starting WW III over a small island).

Blockades were going to suffocate Napoleon, Germany in WW II, etc, but they didn't.

In Napoleon's era there was no connected global economy. Germany's economy was war-oriented and China is totally dependent on global exports. More than half its oil must be imported and it's sea routes easily blocked.

When China invades Taiwan and South Korea (which they will not do) it's economy will collapse.

China is for the moment more occupied with its internal affairs. The political leadership is scared to death for a "chinese spring". Many wrong internal investments were made and the families of the top businessmen are already leaving China.
 
When you are severely overpopulated and the world is in a depression, good old fashioned war is the only way to ensure economic development and reduce population.
If anybody ever needed and can get Lebensraum, it's China. If anybody has excess territory and cannot defend it, it's Chile, Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay. Is America willing to go to war over South America?

So China will invade Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay to create a Lebensraum? The old fashioned war will not increase the economy in a country, it will ruin the economy
 
I'll include 2 posts that I just made in another thread about China in this forum:

Japan dominated the world economy with minimal military spending (defensive in nature), because it didn't intend to start a war.
In contrast, Hitler did not mass produce vegetable oils, VWs, Mercedes, railroad engines, freighters or Condors in order to export them and grow economically (like Schacht, his economist wanted), but put his money on thousands of planes, tanks, the Bismarck, expensive synthetic fuel, etc, and attacked Europe in a few years.
China is both exporting unprecedented amounts of goods (like Japan did) and using much of its income to grow militarily (like Hitler did, but at a slower pace). No country that is not threatened would be foolish enough to spend fortunes expanding and modernizing rapidly its military for offensive operations if it does not intend to use it.


Germany, Italy, Japan, and the USSR were just upgrading their obsolete military in 1938, both claiming for defensive requirements. Nothing wrong with that. Until Germany and the USSR invaded Poland and then the USSR invaded Finland, Lithuania, Bessarabia, etc, for defensive purposes, nothing wrong with that.
Unfortunately, the allies got tired of playing along with Hitler when it was too late, nothing wrong with that.

Iran and North Korea are just updating their military and their nuclear arsenals, nothing worng with that either, they're cool people and Chinese allies.

Sadam Hussein was updating his military supposedly to defend himself from Iran, nothing wrong with that, until he invaded Kuwait and threatened Arabia. Does it take a lot of insight to conclude that people who are not threatened and spend excessively in weapons probably intend to use them?
 
Last edited:
2010 steel production in million tonnes (from wiki, List of countries by steel production)
China 626.7
EU 172.9
Japan 109.6
USA 80.6
Russia 67
India 66.8
Korea 56.5

By the way, apparently the highest per capita steel production is that of Luxembug! Just 512,000 people produce 2.6 million tonnes (1.5% of the EU)

Should China occupy Japan and Korea its capacity would exceed 800 million tonnes (a lot of ships, submarines, tanks, etc), much greater than that of the rest of the world.

for comparison purposes:
1939 Steel Production (million tons): USA 51.4, Germany 23.3, USSR 18.8, UK 13.2, France 6.2, Japan 5.8, Italy 2.3, Canada 1.4, Australia 1.2, India 1. Note the absurdity of India with 378 million people, inexpensive labor and plenty of ore producing only 1 million tons and Australia with 7 million people producing 1.2 million tons. In contrast in 2009 India would produce 11 times more steel than Australia, although India no longer includes Pakistan and Bangla Desh and has no access to British investors, as it did in 1939. This provides a glimpse at the extreme inefficiency of British colonial government in India.

World Population in 1939 (millions): China 515, India 378 (in 1939 it included Pakistan and Bangladesh), USSR 170, USA 131, Germany (including Austria, etc,) 84, Japan 71 (plus 23.4 Koreans), UK 48, Italy 44, France 42, Brazil 41, Poland 35, Romania 20, Philippines 16, Czechoslovakia 15.3, Canada 11.3, South Africa 10.2, Hungary 9.1, Holland 8.7 (plus 69 from the Dutch West Indies), Belgium 8.4, Greece 7.2, Australia 7, Bulgaria 6.5, Malaya 4.4, Denmark 3.8, Finland 3.7, Norway 3, Lithuania 2.6, Yugoslavia 2, New Zealand 1.6, (these countries didn´t fight, but had: Spain 25, Mexico 20, Iran 14.3, Argentina 9, Portugal 6.5, Sweden 6.3, Switzerland 4.2).

It can be clearly seen that the allies had a huge advantage in steel production, population, etc, when WW II broke out. In contrast, China has a big advantage in several respects today.

China also leads the world by much in tungsten, aluminum, magnesium, peanuts, rice, wheat, farm fish, etc,

Although Chinese arms exports are still far below those of the US and Russia, the yearly rate of increase in arms exports is far greater for China, so that perhaps in 8 years China may surpass both the US and Russia in this field. The same is true of the commercial aviation industry, which China may dominate within 20 years.
 
Last edited:
2010 steel production in million tonnes (from wiki, List of countries by steel production)
China 626.7
EU 172.9
Japan 109.6
USA 80.6
Russia 67
India 66.8
Korea 56.5

By the way, apparently the highest per capita steel production is that of Luxembug! Just 512,000 people produce 2.6 million tonnes (1.5% of the EU)

Should China occupy Japan and Korea its capacity would exceed 800 million tonnes (a lot of ships, submarines, tanks, etc), much greater than that of the rest of the world.

for comparison purposes:
1939 Steel Production (million tons): USA 51.4, Germany 23.3, USSR 18.8, UK 13.2, France 6.2, Japan 5.8, Italy 2.3, Canada 1.4, Australia 1.2, India 1. Note the absurdity of India with 378 million people, inexpensive labor and plenty of ore producing only 1 million tons and Australia with 7 million people producing 1.2 million tons. In contrast in 2009 India would produce 11 times more steel than Australia, although India no longer includes Pakistan and Bangla Desh and has no access to British investors, as it did in 1939. This provides a glimpse at the extreme inefficiency of British colonial government in India.

World Population in 1939 (millions): China 515, India 378 (in 1939 it included Pakistan and Bangladesh), USSR 170, USA 131, Germany (including Austria, etc,) 84, Japan 71 (plus 23.4 Koreans), UK 48, Italy 44, France 42, Brazil 41, Poland 35, Romania 20, Philippines 16, Czechoslovakia 15.3, Canada 11.3, South Africa 10.2, Hungary 9.1, Holland 8.7 (plus 69 from the Dutch West Indies), Belgium 8.4, Greece 7.2, Australia 7, Bulgaria 6.5, Malaya 4.4, Denmark 3.8, Finland 3.7, Norway 3, Lithuania 2.6, Yugoslavia 2, New Zealand 1.6, (these countries didn´t fight, but had: Spain 25, Mexico 20, Iran 14.3, Argentina 9, Portugal 6.5, Sweden 6.3, Switzerland 4.2).

It can be clearly seen that the allies had a huge advantage in steel production, population, etc, when WW II broke out. In contrast, China has a big advantage in several respects today.

China also leads the world by much in tungsten, aluminum, magnesium, peanuts, rice, wheat, farm fish, etc,

Although Chinese arms exports are still far below those of the US and Russia, the yearly rate of increase in arms exports is far greater for China, so that perhaps in 8 years China may surpass both the US and Russia in this field. The same is true of the commercial aviation industry, which China may dominate within 20 years.

Why do you think China is planning to go to war and occupy Korea and Japan? It would be much better trade with Korea and Japan than to attack them, don't you think?
 
Like I said, people who are not threatened and intend to trade, like Japan, Germany, etc, do not waste a fortune building up a massive military. They simply try to make as many trade partners as possible.
Although China doesn't talk too much about it, anti Japanese sentiment runs deep (as it does in North Korea). Japanese investment in China is probably close to peaking in a shrinking world economy. Invading Japan not only increases the Chinese industrial capacity, the earnings from the nationalized Japanese industry in China would remain in China.
China has been trying to invade Japan since the time of Kublai Khan, even when Japan had little to offer. Today it is an industrial powerhouse accross a pond from China.
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are the only powerful American allies in the region, but are far apart and therefore easy to conquer peacemeal. Once they fall the Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc, don´t stand a chance. Then Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay.
The main question is will the people from these nations be much worse off or even a little better off under a powerful, authoritarian government that limits population growth, etc, and coordinates resource exploitation, agricultural production, transportation, etc,?

If you combine all the Asian industry to supply the expanding Chinese and North Korean armies (and perhaps the Vietnamese army), you have an unstoppable monster.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, people who are not threatened and intend to trade, like Japan, Germany, etc, do not waste a fortune building up a massive military. They simply try to make as many trade partners as possible.
Although China doesn't talk too much about it, anti Japanese sentiment runs deep (as it does in North Korea). Japanese investment in China is probably close to peaking in a shrinking world economy. Invading Japan not only increases the Chinese industrial capacity, the earnings from the nationalized Japanese industry in China would remain in China.
China has been trying to invade Japan since the time of Kublai Khan, even when Japan had little to offer. Today it is an industrial powerhouse accross a pond from China, closer than Taiwan.
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are the only powerful American allies in the region, but are far apart and therefore easy to conquer peacemeal. Once they fall the Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc, don´t stand a chance. Then Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay.
The main question is will the people from these nations be much worse off or even a little better off under a powerful, authoritarian government that limits population growth, etc, and coordinates resource exploitation, agricultural production, transportation, etc,?

If you combine all the Asian industry to supply the expanding Chinese and North Korean armies (and perhaps the Vietnamese army), you have an unstoppable monster.

Did you know that Belgium once tried to invade China? But we didn't because we have no room for all the prisoners of war :)
 
Like I said, people who are not threatened and intend to trade, like Japan, Germany, etc, do not waste a fortune building up a massive military. They simply try to make as many trade partners as possible.
Although China doesn't talk too much about it, anti Japanese sentiment runs deep (as it does in North Korea). Japanese investment in China is probably close to peaking in a shrinking world economy. Invading Japan not only increases the Chinese industrial capacity, the earnings from the nationalized Japanese industry in China would remain in China.
China has been trying to invade Japan since the time of Kublai Khan, even when Japan had little to offer. Today it is an industrial powerhouse accross a pond from China, closer than Taiwan.
South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are the only powerful American allies in the region, but are far apart and therefore easy to conquer peacemeal. Once they fall the Phillipines, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc, don´t stand a chance. Then Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay.
The main question is will the people from these nations be much worse off or even a little better off under a powerful, authoritarian government that limits population growth, etc, and coordinates resource exploitation, agricultural production, transportation, etc,?

If you combine all the Asian industry to supply the expanding Chinese and North Korean armies (and perhaps the Vietnamese army), you have an unstoppable monster.

China will loose everything and the mainland China will plunge into chaos, both economically and politically if they even attempt to invade another country. China needs the world and the world needs China. If they are moving toward anybody they will loose the majority of their customers
 
Taiwan is not a foreign country. According to the Chinese it is just a rogue province.
In a world depression foreign trade collapses, so the best way to keep the people employed is fisrt military spending and ultimately war (before the huge accumulated military spending does not become obsolete, losing its value).
During the 1929 depression, America could not consume even its own goods, much less import enormous quantities from other countries. Industry, turism, agriculture, etc, collapsed. The only factor that has delayed the effects of the present depression is the absurd amount of credit, which had allowed many families to buy houses, cars, etc, that they cannot afford. As the credit system collapses so will demand.
 
Taiwan is not a foreign country. According to the Chinese it is just a rogue province.
In a world depression foreign trade collapses, so the best way to keep the people employed is fisrt military spending and ultimately war (before the huge accumulated military spending does not become obsolete, losing its value).
During the 1929 depression, America could not consume even its own goods, much less import enormous quantities from other countries. Industry, turism, agriculture, etc, collapsed. The only factor that has delayed the effects of the present depression is the absurd amount of credit, which had allowed many families to buy houses, cars, etc, that they cannot afford. As the credit system collapses so will demand.

The difference between the 1929 depression and the latest years recession is the global economic system; this is even called the economic interdependence. China has lost due to recession; they will never jeopardize their global market share. Take a closer look at the global economic system prior the 1929 depression and the recession we have now.
 
Last edited:
Taiwan is not a foreign country. According to the Chinese it is just a rogue province.
It's the last bit of the Republic of China the Communists couldn't capture during the Civil War, as such you have 2 Chinese Governments.
Carthage was a Phoenician Colony untill Phoenecia fell. Seems to have been an independant country after that. What if The Czar or Kerenski had found a defensible position that the Reds couldn't take that could function independantly?
 
Again, by definition, a recession lasting so many years is no longer a recession, but a depression.
The main difference between 1929 and today, is that at in 1928 the US was the largest petroleum, steel, gasoline, car, airplane, appliance, etc, manufacturer and exporter in the world. Britain was the second largest motor vehicle producer. China, Brazil and India had almost no industrial production, German industry had limited production and Stalin was bulding huge steel and military industries, while his agriculture collapsed.
When the depression hit, demand collapsed and some countries put up tariff to curtail imports. Suddenly, many companies close down or let go most of their employees, so there was little money even to buy food.
Roosevelt started a massive public works program (I never understood why he paid double the minimum wage to government employees, instead of paying minimum wage and hiring twice as many people), which put money in circulation helping the economy, but only was really put an end to depression.
In contrast, today the US imports most of its goods and is the main grain (subsidized and therefore not very profitable) and armament exporter (but will soon lose even that if there is no major war). Millions of Americans have gone from being well paid factory or large company white collar workers to part time jobs, or service industry workers or independent workers without.
The US, Europe and Japan have enormous hurdles to clear before building a new power plant or dam, while China can build all it wants, so that its energy (the most basic and essential ingredient for industry, agriculture, etc,) is unlimited and less costly. Its wages, industrial pollution equipment, etc, are much less expensive than those fo the mentioned countries, so there can be no real fear trade with China in the long term, but for some reason most countries are still in denial about this and continue feeding the giant its industries and buying its products. As the depression intensifies (because the government refuses to call it by its name and implement drastic measures to address it), the American economy will be too weak to buy most products from China. What use will China have for foreign trade then?
 
Last edited:
Again, by definition, a recession lasting so many years is no longer a recession, but a depression.
The main difference between 1929 and today, is that at in 1928 the US was the largest petroleum, steel, gasoline, car, airplane, appliance, etc, manufacturer and exporter in the world. Britain was the second largest motor vehicle producer. China, Brazil and India had almost no industrial production, German industry had limited production and Stalin was bulding huge steel and military industries, while his agriculture collapsed.
When the depression hit, demand collapsed and some countries put up tariff to curtail imports. Suddenly, many companies close down or let go most of their employees, so there was little money even to buy food.
Roosevelt started a massive public works program (I never understood why he paid double the minimum wage to government employees, instead of paying minimum wage and hiring twice as many people), which put money in circulation helping the economy, but only was really put an end to depression.
In contrast, today the US imports most of its goods and is the main grain (subsidized and therefore not very profitable) and armament exporter (but will soon lose even that if there is no major war). Millions of Americans have gone from being well paid factory or large company white collar workers to part time jobs, or service industry workers or independent workers without.
The US, Europe and Japan have enormous hurdles to clear before building a new power plant or dam, while China can build all it wants, so that its energy (the most basic and essential ingredient for industry, agriculture, etc,) is unlimited and less costly. Its wages, industrial pollution equipment, etc, are much less expensive than those fo the mentioned countries, so there can be no real fear trade with China in the long term, but for some reason most countries are still in denial about this and continue feeding the giant its industries and buying its products. As the depression intensifies (because the government refuses to call it by its name and implement drastic measures to address it), the American economy will be too weak to buy most products from China. What use will China have for foreign trade then?

There are several problems to compare the Great Depression and today's recession, you really need to check the difference between these two words. Prior the Depression, the absence of institutions increased the effect of the Depression. The similarities they have are both were/are as a result of a failure of the bank system. Moreover, the currency used internationally was not the US dollar, it was gold. Banks that were large and focused on one business were better fitted to deal with the crisis. European banks had during 1920s started to leave the Gold as a referent currency; they were better suited to deal with crisis. The Protectionist polices (tariffs) contributed to the fall of prices on domestic produced goods, when countries started to build stock piles of goods. Today, the recession has influenced the international trade (supply and demand) The consumers do not spend their available income. China is the factory in this world for consumer products. They need us as costumers, they are not interested to make us disappear and buy things from India instead
 
Again, by definition, a recession lasting so many years is no longer a recession, but a depression.
The main difference between 1929 and today, is that at in 1928 the US was the largest petroleum, steel, gasoline, car, airplane, appliance, etc, manufacturer and exporter in the world. Britain was the second largest motor vehicle producer. China, Brazil and India had almost no industrial production, German industry had limited production and Stalin was bulding huge steel and military industries, while his agriculture collapsed.
When the depression hit, demand collapsed and some countries put up tariff to curtail imports. Suddenly, many companies close down or let go most of their employees, so there was little money even to buy food.
Roosevelt started a massive public works program (I never understood why he paid double the minimum wage to government employees, instead of paying minimum wage and hiring twice as many people), which put money in circulation helping the economy, but only was really put an end to depression.
In contrast, today the US imports most of its goods and is the main grain (subsidized and therefore not very profitable) and armament exporter (but will soon lose even that if there is no major war). Millions of Americans have gone from being well paid factory or large company white collar workers to part time jobs, or service industry workers or independent workers without.
The US, Europe and Japan have enormous hurdles to clear before building a new power plant or dam, while China can build all it wants, so that its energy (the most basic and essential ingredient for industry, agriculture, etc,) is unlimited and less costly. Its wages, industrial pollution equipment, etc, are much less expensive than those fo the mentioned countries, so there can be no real fear trade with China in the long term, but for some reason most countries are still in denial about this and continue feeding the giant its industries and buying its products. As the depression intensifies (because the government refuses to call it by its name and implement drastic measures to address it), the American economy will be too weak to buy most products from China. What use will China have for foreign trade then?

There is no recession in the Western world, only no to slight grow. The western world has a strong demand for their internal market, China hasn't. When China stops or winds down their export the western world will look for the goods somewhere else or make them themselves. If China's export stops they will have no money coming in and that means no money to buy the recourses needed for expanding their military. No exports mean closure of thousands of factories with millions of unemployed persons and that will create chaos or uprisings. As long as China does not have a strong internal market they are very vurnable.
 
Hello Ghostrider,
You're right to point out the fact that gold ruled in 1929, not a completely fictitious, inflated dollar, without anything to back it up. The US has been printing dollars like crazy. The only thing that has prevented inflation is the super abundance of Chinese goods and China sucking up those dollars. As the international market becomes flooded with dollars and these lose their value, crap will hit the fan.

Roosevelt could help his situation by getting rid of the gold standard and printing dollars that were accepted by the world. The US president who decides to call it a depression and to take measures to correct it will have to deal with a much weakened American credibility. Even the American people of today have much less trust in and respect for their government.

Other major differences.
In 1929 over 5% of the population worked in agriculture, compared to 1% today.
About 140 million Americans in 1929 Vs. over 300 million today, with much fewer natural resources.
Most families had one car at most, many families didn't have any. Public transportation was much better, especially the trams and trains, which used electricity or burnt coal and consumed no rubber. Most houses didn't have air conditioning (a huge energy waste today).
Roughly 1% of Americans or about 3 million people are in jail or prison, costing billions of dollars a year (a prisoner costs over 10 times more to keep and is no longer expected to work).
Over 12 million living on welfare today, no such thing in 1929.
A baseball or football player or singer earns several orders of magnitude more (in gold) and there are many times more of them.
A teacher works fewer hours and has many fewer students, who are not really expected to learn much today, so the teacher can no longer beat or scold them, but has to cheer them into learning. Most highschools have to have an armed policeman on site full time, not the case in 1929.
 
Last edited:
A few comments...One of the biggest differences between then & now is..back then we were the biggest Creditor nation, now we are the biggest debtor nation. Tarriffs increase prices by reducing competition. In the 20s global trade collapsed because of the Smoot-Hawley Trade Tarrifs & the resulting retaliation. The Fed was the main cause of The Depression when it strangled the money supply fighting the post WWI inflation & didn't let up in time. The resulting collapse of the Stock Market & banks made things even worse.
 
Hello Ghostrider,
You're right to point out the fact that gold ruled in 1929, not a completely fictitious, inflated dollar, without anything to back it up. The US has been printing dollars like crazy. The only thing that has prevented inflation is the super abundance of Chinese goods and China sucking up those dollars. As the international market becomes flooded with dollars and these lose their value, crap will hit the fan.

Roosevelt could help his situation by getting rid of the gold standard and printing dollars that were accepted by the world. The US president who decides to call it a depression and to take measures to correct it will have to deal with a much weakened American credibility. Even the American people of today have much less trust in and respect for their government.

Roosevelt had one card he played out as a respond to the crisis, even if he was not the first to use this tool. The standard governmental response to an economic recession to start to increase the infrastructure which was undeveloped during the depression. The major difference from then to now is the institutions, even if the institutions vary from country to country. Today people have a social safety net, back then they had nothing. Today we have international institutions (IMF, world bank, UN economic division) and a more extended economic system between countries to avoid a "trade war". During the depression...nothing. Governments were much unprepared back than. One reason for this is the industrial revolution, which begun in the end of 19th century, when the economies transformed from an agricultural based economy to an industrial. When people migrated from the countryside into cities. This was the first major blow to the new concept of the new economy. Although, we have faced changes after the depression, economists' are using the term structural changes. When traditional based industries (mining, saw mills, logging) are disappearing and they are replaced with new industries. Washington State in the US is a good example to study this change. However, the "new" industries are demanding a totally different work force. How can we view China from this perspective? If China is "taking" over the production and companies are closing their facilities in the US and Europe and establish in China. One change will be to transform from a production based economy to a knowledge based economy, the process is quite painful for the workers, but it has happen before.

take care,

G
 
Most of the world has no social safety net. China, India, North Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, most African and Latin American countries, etc, and many of the ex USSR republics have little or no social support for the unemployed.

The construction of Hoover dam started in 1931 and FDR became president in 1933, so public works were not invented by him.

The largest public spending in Roosevelt's term was in dams and irrigation projects, which today would be blocked by the greens in order to save a fly that might go extinct. Actually, for years the greens have been lobbying to tear down several dams in Washington state, even though there is a nationwide power shortage.
Only dictatorships like China can afford to build whatever is best for the country, without opposition from small minorities.
 
Most of the world has no social safety net. China, India, North Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, most African and Latin American countries, etc, and many of the ex USSR republics have little or no social support for the unemployed.

The construction of Hoover dam started in 1931 and FDR became president in 1933, so public works were not invented by him.

The largest public spending in Roosevelt's term was in dams and irrigation projects, which today would be blocked by the greens in order to save a fly that might go extinct. Actually, for years the greens have been lobbying to tear down several dams in Washington state, even though there is a nationwide power shortage.
Only dictatorships like China can afford to build whatever is best for the country, without opposition from small minorities.

Infrastructure projects means roads, railroads, bridges, etc. The dam took longer to process. The structural change I referred to is the transformation from logging, mining to high tech industry. (Microsoft, Boeing, Macdonald Douglas) I said Roosevelt did not invented the classical response to an economic crisis. The countries you are referring to has no network, because the majority of them are a hand to mouth based economy, even if parts of the countries have industries (China and India) They are similar as how the US and Europe were during the depression. So they have reasons to be more worried than we.
 
Back
Top