Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The [ECONOMY]

2456785

Posts

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    I try not to be tin foily but I wonder how much politics effects these business decisions. If the Obama Administration remains in power, they are likely to increase (and actually enforce) a lot of economic regulation, especially on Wall Street and longer term on Big Oil/Energy. If the economy doesn't bounce back by the early fall - or more accurately if it appears that its not bouncing back as well as it should - that's probably good for the people controlling the large multinationals.

    But I think the old adage about malice and incompetence comes into play
    I don't know how much of a stomach the Dems will have for more regulation if the economy is still in the doldrums come 2011.

    If the economy is still shitty come November, it's going to be a tough election for incumbents, meaning we're looking at fewer Democrats in Congress. Fairly or not (and some of the economic criticisms levelled at Obama are somewhat unfair), the party in power gets the blame.

    This is what I'm saying. Economy doing better -> Dems lose fewer seats -> Regulation is more likely. Therefore Recovery stalling -> less dominant majorities -> Regulation is neutered.

    But while I think unspoken collusion is highly probable in direct pursuit of profit, this seems a bit too removed to be likely.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Put me on record as saying unemployment starts rising again in January at the latest.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Meanwhile millions of educated workers get to live on $15,000 a year if they get any money at all because the government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry and couldn't give two shits

    I'm not sure how this is supposed to help the banking industry, really.

  • ForarForar #432 Already prepping for Toronto Fan Expo!Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I guess Canada actually looks pretty good...

    No, we don't.

    We totally don't.

    No need to pay attention to us whatsoever. Nope, none at all.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    zeeny wrote: »
    Put me on record as saying unemployment starts rising again in January at the latest.

    Put yourself on record here. If you're right, you stand to triple your money.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Meanwhile millions of educated workers get to live on $15,000 a year if they get any money at all because the government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry and couldn't give two shits

    I'm not sure how this is supposed to help the banking industry, really.

    You're right that's not correct, it's a complicated web of industries and politicians, but the bottom line is that "the people" do not factor into most government decisions.

    Why the hell would 58 votes be insufficient to extend unemployment if they gave a shit? They could easily destroy the filibuster with a simple majority by contesting it
    enc0re wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Put me on record as saying unemployment starts rising again in January at the latest.

    Put yourself on record here. If you're right, you stand to triple your money.

    Wait you can make money by being cynical and being correct? How is that possible, given that cynicism and precognition are synonyms?

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    On Canada:
    According to this morning's Labour Force Survey release (the LFS is a mandatory survey that uses census data - are its days numbered, too?), 97% of the jobs that were lost to the recessions have been recovered.

    source

    Canada has done pretty well compared to its southern brethren.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Put me on record as saying unemployment starts rising again in January at the latest.

    Put yourself on record here. If you're right, you stand to triple your money.

    Wait you can make money by being cynical and being correct? How is that possible, given that cynicism and precognition are synonyms?

    Oh, you have no idea just how cynical. Here's Intrade, betting on whether Intrade will still exist in however many years. It's hilarious.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Put me on record as saying unemployment starts rising again in January at the latest.

    Put yourself on record here. If you're right, you stand to triple your money.

    I'd pass. I'd also keep hoping that it's a very, very bad prediction.
    Also, this link is a flat settlement(y/n) type contract and it seems the market has almost no liquidity. Real men would place their confidence on an actual spread(..and lose their yearly salary!) ;oP

    edit: Intrade was previously the financial skin for Tradesports' financial markes. They closed shop with the sports operation 2 years ago and kept open the financials product. It's never been very succesful.

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    On Canada:
    According to this morning's Labour Force Survey release (the LFS is a mandatory survey that uses census data - are its days numbered, too?), 97% of the jobs that were lost to the recessions have been recovered.

    source

    Canada has done pretty well compared to its southern brethren.

    I keep hearing things around here regarding that we've just postponed our housing bubble which has still yet to massively burst, though I'm not entirely sure of the credibility of such accounts. It apparently has to do with eased regulations/lax hand with regard to mortgages passed by our current government.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Meanwhile millions of educated workers get to live on $15,000 a year if they get any money at all because the government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry and couldn't give two shits

    I'm not sure how this is supposed to help the banking industry, really.

    You're right that's not correct, it's a complicated web of industries and politicians, but the bottom line is that "the people" do not factor into most government decisions.

    Why the hell would 58 votes be insufficient to extend unemployment if they gave a shit? They could easily destroy the filibuster with a simple majority by contesting it

    Incompetence over malice, etc.

    Congress has never been very good at focusing on anything; as I noted in the OP, as recently as seven months ago the Senate managed to unanimously extend unemployment. Whatever horse trading that managed to produce that result didn't occur again, I suppose. If anything, I would blame "a system that rewards myopically scoring short-term political points rather than considering the welfare of Americans" over "shadowy manipulation by the rich".

    When economists talk about the delays and problems associated with fiscal policy, it's usually America they're thinking of - for good or ill, smaller developed countries tend to have less trouble altering the direction of the ship we call government in the ocean of policy options. They are, after all, smaller, and often have more centralized institutions. For all the power devolution that Europe has gone through, it has taken care to retain the strongest tools of fiscal and monetary policy in the hands of central governments.

    My own pet theory is that the US will always have trouble reconciling its founding ideals with the institutions of a modern mixed-economy liberal democracy and that will persistently reduce legislative agility. But I suppose the US is stuck with it.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    I don't suppose anybody can tell me why exchange rates aren't tied to the consumer price index or something?

    Also, how's Russia been doing? Given that one of its spies was paid to sleep with wall street guys, that might be one of the few things Russia may have gotten intel on.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Well, prices might not converge due to real (rather than nominal) costs and differences. And for very large countries like the US any convergence that does happen would take a very long time to occur.

    I mean, measurements of the CPI already take nominal imports into account, since they don't distinguish between domestic goods and foreign goods available on the domestic market. For very small countries exchange rates would be tied closely to the CPI, yes.

    Russia: coasting along on oil revenues, as far as I can tell.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Well, prices might not converge due to real (rather than nominal) costs and differences. And for very large countries like the US any convergence that does happen would take a very long time to occur.

    I mean, measurements of the CPI already take nominal imports into account, since they don't distinguish between domestic goods and foreign goods available on the domestic market. For very small countries exchange rates would be tied closely to the CPI, yes.

    Russia: coasting along on oil revenues, as far as I can tell.

    It just confuses me that the value of money isn't based on what you could buy with the money. My mind breaks down when people seriously try to claim that it's cheaper to buy everything in a certain location due to the value of the currency, as it seems like claiming that you have to drive farther in the US because we use miles.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I don't suppose anybody can tell me why exchange rates aren't tied to the consumer price index or something?

    As in:

    Why isn't there a law or regulation tying exchange rates to the CPI (or else)?
    -or-
    Why don't supply and demand force market exchange rates to converge to CPI (or else) ratios between countries?

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    My only hope is that the Obama administration will be more apt to do something post november elections, because the dems will probably still have a majority, but too small to try to squeeze things through without using force (as it seems now they're trying to wiggle things through gently by bending on one knee and offering fellatio to the GOP)

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    It just confuses me that the value of money isn't based on what you could buy with the money. My mind breaks down when people seriously try to claim that it's cheaper to buy everything in a certain location due to the value of the currency, as it seems like claiming that you have to drive farther in the US because we use miles.

    The value of money is indeed driven by what you can buy with it (with some caveats that are not entirely relevant to trade theory), and the claim that it is cheaper to buy everything in a certain location entirely due to different values of the currency is usually false (again, excepting some unusual circumstances).

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    My only hope is that the Obama administration will be more apt to do something post november elections, because the dems will probably still have a majority, but too small to try to squeeze things through without using force (as it seems now they're trying to wiggle things through gently by bending on one knee and offering fellatio to the GOP)

    There's an even better chance during the lame duck session. You still have the big majority, are as far away from the next election as possible, and quite a few congresspeople know they are out anyway. Combine that with Volcker's deficit commission releasing their report on Dec 1.

    We can hope for some big long term cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and hopefully some tax raises to go along with it. (Come on VAT, come on VAT!) Too bad we can't ditch the mortgage interest deduction right now as the IMF recommends we do.

  • chidonachidona Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Russia: coasting along on oil revenues, as far as I can tell.

    Pretty much, but Medvedev has been trying to restructure the economy to train more business leaders and get the rest of the economy kicking off. I think that, given a decade or two, Russia will be doing verrrrry well in economic terms, if it manages to somewhat deal with it's huge black market and crime levels.

    RE Scalfin:
    I don't suppose anybody can tell me why exchange rates aren't tied to the consumer price index or something?

    They are. Well, sort of.
    A brief explanation is that a long-run equilibrium value of the exchange rate can be given by relative purchasing power parity. To skip a load of maths, it's basically the logged change in exchange rate over time is equal to the difference between the inflation rates between the two countries. Whilst shocks mean that this equilibrium is rarely reached in the short-run, studies have suggested that the shocks tend to be mean-reverting, despite a high degree of persistence.

    A huge problem in Macroeconomics is modelling these short term shocks. The Dornbusch model is an elegant attempt to model it, if you wish to delve deeper, but ultimately lacks empirical credibility.

  • PeccaviPeccavi oh... oh my!Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Well, prices might not converge due to real (rather than nominal) costs and differences. And for very large countries like the US any convergence that does happen would take a very long time to occur.

    I mean, measurements of the CPI already take nominal imports into account, since they don't distinguish between domestic goods and foreign goods available on the domestic market. For very small countries exchange rates would be tied closely to the CPI, yes.

    Russia: coasting along on oil revenues, as far as I can tell.

    It just confuses me that the value of money isn't based on what you could buy with the money. My mind breaks down when people seriously try to claim that it's cheaper to buy everything in a certain location due to the value of the currency, as it seems like claiming that you have to drive farther in the US because we use miles.

    It's doubtful that everything would be cheaper in a certain country, but since the CPI looks at a basket of certain goods, it can be more or less expensive for different countries to obtain those goods. As such, I've never really seen much evidence for absolute PPP between countries. An example of this is The Economist's Big Mac Index, which compares the relative price of Big Macs worldwide.

    However, I have seen evidence of relative PPP, which says that the difference in inflation rates between countries equals the percentage change in exchange rates. For my International Finance class a couple years ago, I had to write a memo on the Relative PPP model using Argentina for data, and what I found was that relative PPP held true for the most part other than the crash of the Argentinian Peso.

    kvhn.png
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Everyone is goddamn hoarding cash.

    h/t MR

    From the commentary I am still sympathetic to the explanation of "nobody trusts the financial market to remain stable, therefore heightened liquidity preference" rather than the moral-hazard debt argument (which would presumably only apply to TBTF firms?)

    (which would happily imply that much good can be done through monetary stimulus)

  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited July 2010
    I know, quite literally, nothing about economics.

    Which is unfortunate because Ireland is one of the worst hit countries in Europe.

    Our unemployment is about 14% and our public debt is over 40% of our GDP.

    Our economy is supposed to grow by 3% this year but our government is still planning to cut €3bn out of the budget this Fall.

    We're fucked.

  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    I know, quite literally, nothing about economics.

    Which is unfortunate because Ireland is one of the worst hit countries in Europe.

    Our unemployment is about 14% and our public debt is over 40% of our GDP.

    Our economy is supposed to grow by 3% this year but our government is still planning to cut €3bn out of the budget this Fall.

    We're fucked.

    Damn. You guys were all over that Celtic Tiger thingy. It seemed to be awesome at the time.

    What the hell happened?

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited July 2010
    VeritasVR wrote: »
    I know, quite literally, nothing about economics.

    Which is unfortunate because Ireland is one of the worst hit countries in Europe.

    Our unemployment is about 14% and our public debt is over 40% of our GDP.

    Our economy is supposed to grow by 3% this year but our government is still planning to cut €3bn out of the budget this Fall.

    We're fucked.

    Damn. You guys were all over that Celtic Tiger thingy. It seemed to be awesome at the time.

    What the hell happened?

    The government didn't save anything, it didn't properly invest in infrastructure, it refused to bring in a property tax which let the bubble grow to monstrous proportions.

    Also it turned a blind eye to the shenanigans in the banking sector which lead to a spectacular implosion of the entire system, something that has cost tens of billions to repair and will need billions more still.

    It's not like Greece where half the country doesn't pay their taxes and 50% of the workforce are employed by the state, our country was just run by fucking idiots who are still in power.

  • VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    VeritasVR wrote: »
    I know, quite literally, nothing about economics.

    Which is unfortunate because Ireland is one of the worst hit countries in Europe.

    Our unemployment is about 14% and our public debt is over 40% of our GDP.

    Our economy is supposed to grow by 3% this year but our government is still planning to cut €3bn out of the budget this Fall.

    We're fucked.

    Damn. You guys were all over that Celtic Tiger thingy. It seemed to be awesome at the time.

    What the hell happened?

    The government didn't save anything, it didn't properly invest in infrastructure, it refused to bring in a property tax which let the bubble grow to monstrous proportions.

    Also it turned a blind eye to the shenanigans in the banking sector which lead to a spectacular implosion of the entire system, something that has cost tens of billions to repair and will need billions more still.

    So, I wouldn't say you know literally nothing about economics then. That sounds like a reasonable summary, albeit a really unfortunate one.

    Does that mean the growth there during the early 00's was actually a bubble, and not true growth?

    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited July 2010
    VeritasVR wrote: »
    VeritasVR wrote: »
    I know, quite literally, nothing about economics.

    Which is unfortunate because Ireland is one of the worst hit countries in Europe.

    Our unemployment is about 14% and our public debt is over 40% of our GDP.

    Our economy is supposed to grow by 3% this year but our government is still planning to cut €3bn out of the budget this Fall.

    We're fucked.

    Damn. You guys were all over that Celtic Tiger thingy. It seemed to be awesome at the time.

    What the hell happened?

    The government didn't save anything, it didn't properly invest in infrastructure, it refused to bring in a property tax which let the bubble grow to monstrous proportions.

    Also it turned a blind eye to the shenanigans in the banking sector which lead to a spectacular implosion of the entire system, something that has cost tens of billions to repair and will need billions more still.

    So, I wouldn't say you know literally nothing about economics then. That sounds like a reasonable summary, albeit a really unfortunate one.

    Does that mean the growth there during the early 00's was actually a bubble, and not true growth?

    Well my post was basically just a rehash of what I've read in the papers over the past year or so.

    Regarding the thing about "true growth" (I don't have a breeze what it means) I read something in the NYT's Economix blog that had something to say about that here.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    It's still a bit early to tell on Ireland, I think; there were similar shenanigans in East Asia back during 1997. But the region mostly bounced back after a couple of years. The question is always over fundamentals and it's hard to tell in the midst of the crash itself.

    Debt at 40% of GDP is high, but hardly devastating.

  • CidonaBoyCidonaBoy Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Irelands 40%, that doesn't include NAMA does it? o_O

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Well, prices might not converge due to real (rather than nominal) costs and differences. And for very large countries like the US any convergence that does happen would take a very long time to occur.

    I mean, measurements of the CPI already take nominal imports into account, since they don't distinguish between domestic goods and foreign goods available on the domestic market. For very small countries exchange rates would be tied closely to the CPI, yes.

    Russia: coasting along on oil revenues, as far as I can tell.

    It just confuses me that the value of money isn't based on what you could buy with the money. My mind breaks down when people seriously try to claim that it's cheaper to buy everything in a certain location due to the value of the currency, as it seems like claiming that you have to drive farther in the US because we use miles.

    Money isn't concrete. It is INCREDIBLY fluid. It may be a bit of a mind freak to accept that, but push past it and things make much more sense.

    Shall we talk about how banks just invent money out of thin air?

    georgersig.jpg
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Any system that allows one to buy and sell promises to pay in full later creates money out of thin air, really.

  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited July 2010
    CidonaBoy wrote: »
    Irelands 40%, that doesn't include NAMA does it? o_O

    I don't know, the European Commission redefined the recapitalisation of the banks from investment to spending a month or so ago and that pushed our national debt to the highest level in the EU. I don't think they did the same with NAMA as the government is still insisting it will turn a profit.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Well, prices might not converge due to real (rather than nominal) costs and differences. And for very large countries like the US any convergence that does happen would take a very long time to occur.

    I mean, measurements of the CPI already take nominal imports into account, since they don't distinguish between domestic goods and foreign goods available on the domestic market. For very small countries exchange rates would be tied closely to the CPI, yes.

    Russia: coasting along on oil revenues, as far as I can tell.

    It just confuses me that the value of money isn't based on what you could buy with the money. My mind breaks down when people seriously try to claim that it's cheaper to buy everything in a certain location due to the value of the currency, as it seems like claiming that you have to drive farther in the US because we use miles.

    Money isn't concrete. It is INCREDIBLY fluid. It may be a bit of a mind freak to accept that, but push past it and things make much more sense.

    Shall we talk about how banks just invent money out of thin air?

    No, the banking thing makes sense. It's just the claims that China has a trade advantage and Europeans coming here to buy shit that makes my head hurt, just like how I can't figure out what dividend-free stock prices are based on.

    Now, the problem in Ireland is that they don't actually have any tigers, so their economy was based on nothing.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    In his February budget proposal, the president requested $266 billion for additional stimulus for the economy. And just a month ago, the President called for $50 billion in emergency aid to states alongside the extension of unemployment benefits. This morning Axelrod called again for extension of unemployment benefits, but aid to states was not on his list.

    “It’s true that there is not a great desire” on Capitol Hill to spend more money, Axelrod said, “even though there is some argument for additional spending in the short-run to continue to generate economic activity.”

    “There’s not a great appetite for it, but I do think we can get additional tax relief for small businesses – that’s what we want to do – additional lending for small businesses,” the President’s senior advisor said.

    Truly, that will increase... aww, fuck it. We're boned.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Why they are all on about lending when the interest rate is already nailed to the floor is beyond me. Unless their plan is to have loans with negative rates - don't pay us back, just watch it evaporate!
    Scalfin wrote: »
    No, the banking thing makes sense. It's just the claims that China has a trade advantage and Europeans coming here to buy shit that makes my head hurt, just like how I can't figure out what dividend-free stock prices are based on.

    Dividend-free stock prices: here's an explanation. Essentially, capital gains, plus some tax-code-driven distortion.

    Trade advantages: any discussion proposing the existence of trade advantages entails leaving the comparative advantage model, so it really varies from claim to claim. With the exchange rate, it may be worth remembering that the stuff individual people in a country want to buy or sell tends to be different. People who consumer imports - that is, consumers - tend to be less politically organized than businesses which make stuff for export and who may be competing directly with foreign businesses.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    It's because they've bought into the government can't create jobs rhetoric so they have to focus on "free market" solutions by giving lots of money to small businesses to do what exactly with I'm not sure.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Henry Blodget on why the economy might implode again. Tyler Cowen on Henry Blodget on why etc. etc.

    I am inclined to agree with Cowen's #2 - if the PRC goes, it'll take the rest of the world with it for at least another decade. If there is something truly strange about the world economy today, it's that East Asian savers (1) save a lot, and (2) really, really, really love US dollars and securities, despite the low returns. It's not just China, but Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, etc. - but obviously the PRC is the 800 pound gorilla here. Let us hope that this regional desire for dollars remains high.

    I don't know about Europe, though. I mean, a recession would certainly hurt hard, but how likely is even a Euro collapse to provoke a sustained recession? The ECB isn't that incompetent, is it?

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Why would China be a threat about imploding? I had thought that at most this recession has had the effect of just making China's economy grow a tad bit slower. They still have a while to still develop economically before I'd think they'd face similar slowdowns like the US.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    It's because they've bought into the government can't create jobs rhetoric so they have to focus on "free market" solutions by giving lots of money to small businesses to do what exactly with I'm not sure.

    But direct demand-side policies are out of the question. Sigh.

    Even if a recovery happens, it will probably balloon into another bubble incredibly rapidly - way too many of these measures entail loaning money to businesses who then sit on them. And then the policy response is to give away even more money, etc. Once the desire for huge cushions made of cash falls, there's going to be a lot of money out there.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    Why would China be a threat about imploding? I had thought that at most this recession has had the effect of just making China's economy grow a tad bit slower. They still have a while to still develop economically before I'd think they'd face similar slowdowns like the US.

    Authoritarian states don't really deal with urban unemployment well, and much of their economy is still based on selling stuff to the US and Europe, which isn't buying as much as it used to.

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    Why would China be a threat about imploding? I had thought that at most this recession has had the effect of just making China's economy grow a tad bit slower. They still have a while to still develop economically before I'd think they'd face similar slowdowns like the US.

    Authoritarian states don't really deal with urban unemployment well, and much of their economy is still based on selling stuff to the US and Europe, which isn't buying as much as it used to.

    Wouldn't this be a good opportunity for states like China to take advantage of their growing middle class and start spurring more technical jobs and/or leverage their own domestic markets?

Sign In or Register to comment.