Since I just made a huge reddit effort post let me put the two sides of the argument here (I like 2+2 because the discussion doesn't end after 6 hours).

You have to be joking. Reddit attacks China at every turn. Always with the same misguided talking points OP does.

>#1- BUBBLE THEORY. China has a ton of bubbles. The real estate issue is out of control.

Westerners just can't imagine a country outcompeting them so they cling to this myth that it's all a bubble. Every single time I mention China I get hit with BUBBLE THEORY.

Meanwhile all reputable economists put China on track to pass the American GDP by 202x. (then they always move the goalposts and say BUT PER CAPITA). Feel free to short the Chinese economy if you believe these 'bubbles'.


>The "old people bubble": The difference is that Europe has a high standard of living, and China is still quite a ways away

Another variant of bubble theory. Guess what the EU and the USA are suffering this way harder and way faster than China which has another 20-30 years. And even if China was 50% old people they'd still have 2x the workforce of MURICA.

>The birthrate. The One Child policy: China, like everybody else, is going to stop growing after about 2020-2030. This is one of those problems everyone is going to have, but it's going to be worse in places that have lower standards of living

China acknowledges the problem and is phasing out the One Child policy. Every single country on earth suffers this.. look at Japan, they've been aged out already.

>Arable land China is currently pretty much at max production capacity as is. They have two more problems on top of that. 1. People are eating more. As people make more money, they buy more food.

That's what's going to keep America on top? More corn growing? Japan manages with a tiny country and a huge population.. and China is getting richer and richer to buy your food. Food is fungible.

>Everybody else rising (India, Brazil, etc)

As the 'established' power America suffers way more from new players. China is rising along with India.

>Energy : The U.S. is now almost completely independent of the ME. What happens if the U.S. withdraws, and the ME implodes? China and Europe are currently the ME's biggest customers, and neither have the pull to stabilize the place.

China has invested more in energy and buying up African resources than America and continues to do so because it's growing so crazily. Energy is 'fungible' so this affects all players.

America has a 20,000,000,000$ debt. China has trillions of dollars IN RESERVE. Stop clinging to MURICA. China is going to start pushing around America and seizing land just like Russia did, I guarantee it.

Thank you for stopping by Mr. Beck.

Broadcast on the BBC.

"Russia pushing America around" is a nice touch.

What am I supposed to cling to?

I like how you've managed to put together an entire debate without having opponents or a proposition to debate

Copypasting reddit threads is a solid posting strategy.

$20B in debt vs $3 trillion in reserves are not comparable #s

If there's a debt crisis in one of these two countries in the near term, it aint gonna be in the US.

That last sentence is LOLOLOLOL. I think there will be another country stepping in wayyy before then. You might have heard of it. It is called Japan. It is already starting to happen.

Not sure why lifting millions of people out of severe poverty is being thought of as a problem.

ITT I learn that private debt or municipal debt or corporate debt etc etc is meaningless.

Copypasting goes right along with their winning economic strategy.

reddit's favorite line (heard this from dozens of 'individual free thinkers') : MURICAN debt doesn't matter because we owe it to ourselves

no you don't. you owe it to your PENSION FUNDS and your corporations..

or the argument is that it doesn't matter because servicing the debt is easy. The only problem comes when and if American economy picks up and Govt. can't continue to keep rates down.
The real problem is all this spending is being wasted on corporate welfare and causing massive wealth inequality

But... but... twenty TRILLION!

As a European not sure what to make of this. This thread is kinda like the Crimea thread.

WTF IS 202x. 20 trillion$ debt vs 3 trillion$?

202x. Is that a number? What's the damn code?

Lack of taxes causing wealth inequality is unfounded. At best you could assert that more redistribution through the code could help offset the economic drivers (globalization, winner take all markets, technology, etc) that exist.

Servicing the debt is currently "easy" due to the Fed's current stance but that won't last forever. We have a well known fiscal challenge ahead. The deficit is currently falling but it gets ugly again in 2020. Hopefully we won't wait until then to address but we likely will. This isn't an end is near prediction just a frustration with our current political processes. We should do better.

unchained

I agree with you that debt can become a problem and I while I would be in favor of increased taxation I believe it be much wiser to shift the spending while cutting it. Save say a trillion on defence offsetting most of the debt while increasing education and infrastructure spending by say, 250 billion? This would do much more for levelling wealth inequality then the billions we spend on cost + contracts and would bring in a larger tax base. Then while we're talking about market exposure I would restructure the medical field to allow for say some 30,000 foreign doctors to enter the US market offering them incentives to work and go to school here, thus massively cutting our medical expenses which would save us a couple 100 billion more per annum. Wouldn't even need to raise taxes and hurt production. Maybe I'd legalize drugs and tax them thus decreasing spending on prison system and raising money on excise tax.

While any argument about taxation and wealth inequality may be impossible to prove as casual relationship , institutional laws such as Taft-Hartley have had a clear cause and effect relationship on wealth inequality. If we look at wealth inequality and worker production rates following Taft-Hartley in a time period of post TH pre globalization say 1955-1975 we see an institutional driven outcome(lagging wages, wealth inequality increase, and increased worker productivity) forming in a time period where there were no globalization pressures. While we're at it would you care to explain how doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and corpro farmers have been able to evade these magical self-correcting market forces? Can it really be that big of a leap to assume that taxation policy also creates wealth inequality?

There is savings in the defense but in order to attain significant cost savings we to change our expectations of readiness and ability. Convincing Europe to pay their fair share would be nice. All fixed price contracting was tried with pretty poor results. Cost plus award fee or incentive fee structures seem wise.
Taft-Hartley as the downfall of the union and driver of wealth inequality is something I need to understand better. I know this is EPI's position and they are a respected outfit they are philosophically lean towards labor. Union density is a pretty complex subject.
I didn't assert that markets were self correcting and not sure what you are getting at with the doctor, pharmaceutical, and farming bit. Maybe you are just pointing out these industries have significant barriers to entry shielding the from competitive global pressures. Are you arguing for reducing medical accreditation and the elimination of the FDA?
Taxes certainly affect wealth inequality and maybe creating it correct. If only tax policy and total income were independent. The correct solution would be so much easier.