Mika Brzeznski interviewed two young economist-authors on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" this morning. I recall one book was entitled Winner Take All. The other book was entitled Hybrid Reality, as I recall.

In the short interview, these were the key points made by the authors and presumably discussed in more detail in their books.

• China has cash reserves of more than $3 trillion and no sovereign debt. They are using these reserves for both internal and international long-term investments to further strengthen their economy. (To put that in perspective, that amount of cash is about two years-worth of the entire U.S. Gross Domestic Product!).

• They understand quite well that of their 1.3 billion citizens that 300 million are extremely wealthy but about a billion are living close to poverty. China has virtually no middle class. China's published five-year plans show extensive investments in technology and unfrastructure with objective of creating significant numbers of new jobs, many in the middle class, knowing that middle class spending will expand domestic markets for goods and services.

• There are currently 25 wars going on in the world. Most are over commodities in one way or another. One author postulates that the economic and increasingly military battles of coming decades will be over the control of commodities. We've already seen wars fought over oil, diamonds, even potable water. The author theorizes that future wars in the next few decades will will be fought over oil and other fossil fuels, plus everything from minerals for machinery and products to potable water, lumber resources and arable land.

• The Chinese have been investing in countries that have the resources they know thy will need and will be in short supply. There are many examples in Africa, South America, the Middle East, and recently even in Canada.

• Most often, the countries where they are investing have high birth rates, an extremely low average age, very high unemployment, and weak governments. Again, there are many examples. The authors theorize that by China investing, creating new commodity-based industries and creating jobs, that a local embrace of their political beliefs will follow. The authors contrast that approach with the U.S.'s more "unilateral" approach (do it our way).

• China is investing significantly in their military. But their unstated purpose appears to be solely designed to protect their economic interests as they expand around the world. Of course we know that human rights are not high on China's list of political or social objectives, and their burgeoning military strength does not appear to be designed to achieve political objectives either at home or internationally. Their military expansion seems solely designed to sustain their political power at home and protect future economic expansion internationally.

What I heard, albeit in a brief interview, I found very difficult to argue with. In fact, there is ample evidence that China's strategy is already well under way, both at home and abroad. I know that Americans still seem to react to the "red threat", the expansion of communism. That was certainly a Russian objective before the CCCP disintegrated in 1991. But there's no evidence that China has the expansion of communism beyond their borders high on their list of national objectives. However, they make no effort to disguise that their political posture is based on a theory that expanded economic success, influence and the creation of new jobs and industry in foreign countries will lead to a widened embrace of communism.

So with all that happening, what are our political leaders arguing about? Whether or not our current economic problems are the result of a previous political administration (pretty backward-looking, don't you think?); whether to repeal an expensive healthcare system (even though we have no reasonable alternative) while at the same time lowering the taxes on the most wealthy and corporations (with no reliable evidence that either will have a positive economic effect--maybe even quite the contrary); how to remove the influence of government on our lives and our economy (has that worked, is that why China has been so economically dominant in recent years?); whether one presidential candidate's business experience did or didn't create a few thousand jobs; and now, increasing political noise from both liberals and conservatives over whether we should become directly involved with our military in Syria (which has no identifiable natural resources, by the way).

What is our Congress doing? Other than a whole lot of ideological bickering, not much that I can see. They can't even agree on a federal budget, let alone any kind of long-term economic or fiscal planning. But their 'summer recess' is coming up, I suppose they're planning for that.

Maybe "disturbing" is too mild a description of my reaction, my frustration, my aggravation.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Mika Brzeznski interviewed two young economist-authors on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" this morning. I recall one book was entitled Winner Take All. The other book was entitled Hybrid Reality, as I recall.

In the short interview, these were the key points made by the authors and presumably discussed in more detail in their books.

• China has cash reserves of more than $3 trillion and no sovereign debt. They are using these reserves for both internal and international long-term investments to further strengthen their economy. (To put that in perspective, that amount of cash is a little more than two years-worth of the entire U.S. GDP!).

• They understand quite well that of their 1.3 billion citizens that 300 million are extremely wealthy but about a billion are living close to poverty. China has virtually no middle class. China's published five-year plan s show extensive investments in technology and unfrastructure with objective of creating significant numbers of new jobs, essentially forcing the creation of a significant middle class and expanded domestic markets for goods and services.

• One author postulates that the economic and increasingly military battles of coming decades will be over commodities. We've already seen wars fought over oil, diamonds, even potable water. That will increase in coming decades over everything from minerals to potable water to lumber resources to arable land.

• The Chinese have been investing in countries that have the resources they know thy will need and will be in short supply. There are many examples in Africa, South America, the Middle East, and recently even in Canada.

• Most often, the countries where they are investing have high birth rates, an extremely low average age, very high unemployment, and weak governments. Again, there are many examples. The authors theorize that by China investing, creating new commodity-based industries and creating jobs, that a local embrace of their political beliefs will follow. The authors contrast that approach with the U.S.'s more "unilateral" approach (do it our way).

• China is investing significantly in their military. But their unstated purpose appears to be solely designed to protect their economic interests as they expand around the world. Of course we know that human rights are not high on China's list of political or social objectives, and their burgeoning military strength does not appear to be designed to achieve political objectives either at home or internationally. Their military expansion seems solely designed to sustain their political power and protect future economic expansion.

What I heard, albeit in a brief interview, I found very difficult to argue with. In fact, there is ample evidence that China's strategy is already well under way. I know that Americans seem to still react to the "red threat", the expansion of communism. That was certainly a Russian objective before the CCCP disintegrated, but there's no real evidence that China has the expansion of their political system beyond their borders high on their list of national objectives. However, it does appear that their political posture is based on the theory that expanded economic success and influence will lead to an embrace of their political system.

So with all that happening, what are our political leaders arguing about? Whether or not our current economic problems are the result of a previous political administration (pretty backward-looking, don't you think?); whether to repeal an expensive healthcare system while at the same time lowering the taxes on the mst wealthy and corporations (with no reliable evidence that either will have a positive economic effect--maybe even quite the contrary); how to remove the influence of government on our lives and our economy (has that worked, is that why China has been so economically dominant in recent years?); and now, increasing political noise over whether we should apply military force in Syria (which has no identifiable natural resources, by the way).

What is our Congress doing? Other than a whole lot of ideological bickering, not much that I can see. They can't even agree on a federal budget, let alone any kind of long-term economic or fiscal planning. But their 'summer recess' is coming up, I suppose they're planning for that.

Maybe "disturbing" is too mild a description of my reaction, my frustration, my aggravation.

Add the fact that they are playing footsie with the Russians and my heartburn goes way up. PressTV - Russian president visits china to attend summit, enhance cooperation

Originally Posted by Posh 08

Add the fact that they are playing footsie with the Russians and my heartburn goes way up. PressTV - Russian president visits china to attend summit, enhance cooperation

Yeah, and the fact that Putin didn't find it particularly important to attend the recent American-hosted G-8 meeting at Camp David kind of tells you which side of the bread Russia sees the butter on, don't you think?

But if we're looking for someone to blame, ask yourself how much U.S. public discussion, debate or concern occurred as the rest of Russia thumbing it's nose at attending "our" meetings? Would Putin have stiffed similar meetings hosted by China in Beijing? Because the American public doesn't seem to care about our badly deteriorating influence, why should those we elect to represent us?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Yeah, and the fact that Putin didn't find it particularly important to attend the recent American-hosted G-8 meeting at Camp David kind of tells you which side of the bread Russia sees the butter on, don't you think?

But if we're looking for someone to blame, ask yourself how much U.S. public discussion, debate or concern occurred as the rest of Russia thumbing it's nose at attending "our" meetings? Would Putin have stiffed similar meetings hosted by China in Beijing? Because the American public doesn't seem to care about our badly deteriorating influence, why should those we elect to represent us?

Chilling thought. The Russian and Chinese leaders making plans to divide up the world. Our new military emphasis is the Pacific. If the Russians start prowling the Atlantic again we are going to be thin.

can we conclude the rest of the world has our number?
And opportunists like Russia (especially under Putin) and China both will continue to take advantage of our weaknesses and continuing economic decline.

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

can we conclude the rest of the world has our number?
And opportunists like Russia (especially under Putin) and China both will continue to take advantage of our weaknesses and continuing economic decline.

btk

Seems like a fair conclusion to me. Which of our leaders or prospective leaders are saying anything about changing things?

That is what Romney and Trump have been saying for sometime. Geeezzz

Originally Posted by rubicon

That is what Romney and Trump have been saying for sometime. Geeezzz

YES.....I have heard Romney talking at length about this. Actually, someone did talk about this very subject on here and was drummed on how silly to mention Russia as I recall.

Just a country girl, but have a great memory !

I kind of remember speaking to the threat of Russia and being ridiculed in an earlier post by all usual suspects.

It's business as usual for China and Russia. Japan has just accused China of selling middle launchers to North Korea and we accused the Russians of sending attack helicopters to Syria. Mr. Romney was ridiculed for saying the Russians were our biggest threat but I think he showed he has vision.

Originally Posted by Rags123

YES.....I have heard Romney talking at length about this. Actually, someone did talk about this very subject on here and was drummed on how silly to mention Russia as I recall.

Just a country girl, but have a great memory !

We would be better off is some of our elected criminals would listen to y'all Country Girls.