China nuke threat

S

Sarang01

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
I don't know how many of you had heard of this but on Thursday a Chinese general threatened to send Nukes our way if we so much as TARGETED China in response to a confrontation over the Taiwan situation.
I'm sorry I can't provide a link. I know the info is around I just seem to be at a loss finding it.
 
Here's a link to a site talking about China's threat of nuclear retaliation for U.S involvement with Taiwan.

It seems the only way they would use nuclear force, is if we were to step in and stop them from keeping Taiwan a part of China instead of unifying itself. I know its in our best interests to just stay out of this all together, but with our track record, I am sure that we won't.

Either way the government choses, it lets the other group down. But ultimately, if they were to oppose China, it'd probably be the last mistake that we would make as the Supreme World Power. Needless to say, either way, quite a few innocents will die until this issue is resolved.

IMHO, we probably should stay away from the Taiwan issue altogether, and neither side with China or Taiwan, and let them solve it internally. Just like we allow our states to do, we should allow China the same right.
 
The general said that is not china's official position, and other chinese commented saying he is a self noted "hawk" and no one with access to china's official war plans would be so open.
 
yea, they also said the generals gets a lot of respect internallly and does not normally make statements as radical as that one.
 
Given even just a notion that China could, possibly, use nuclear weapons against us if we get involved wit the Taiwan ordeal, is scary enough. Whether or not it would happen, is a completely different story. Just by mentioning using nukes, they have already scared the shit out of a few people. Even if it is a radical general, his ideas are still respected, so whos to say he is bluffing. Like anyone is going to actually come out in the media and agree with him, that would be a stupid decision. It would be an even stupider decision for the U.S to get/stay involved in with Taiwan and its independence push, with just the slightest notion that China would use nukes against us.

This is all IMHO.
 
[quote name='craven_fiend']Given even just a notion that China could, possibly, use nuclear weapons against us if we get involved wit the Taiwan ordeal, is scary enough. Whether or not it would happen, is a completely different story. Just by mentioning using nukes, they have already scared the shit out of a few people. Even if it is a radical general, his ideas are still respected, so whos to say he is bluffing. Like anyone is going to actually come out in the media and agree with him, that would be a stupid decision. It would be an even stupider decision for the U.S to get/stay involved in with Taiwan and its independence push, with just the slightest notion that China would use nukes against us.

This is all IMHO.[/QUOTE]

Look at all the highly respected people in the bush administration (not necessarily among the public though), there words often aren't in line with the actual administration. Though, as to using nukes if we nuked them or invade them and they can't seem to stop us, I would think that version would be reasonable
 
I believe US war against China will be occurring in the next 10-15 years. It's a war that the US will win easily, and will sadly probably kill millions of the Chinese.
 
[quote name='kittie']I believe US war against China will be occurring in the next 10-15 years. It's a war that the US will win easily, and will sadly probably kill millions of the Chinese.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't be to sure about that, if any nuclear weapons become involved even the winner won't be very well off. I bet if a war were to erupt between the US and China it would be similar to the cold war.
 
I doubt a war with China will occur anytime soon if at all. However this is a good example of why other countries may pursue nuclear weapons. Granted, China's military is large enough that even without nukes they are more than powerful enough to really do what ever they want. The fact they haven't is important. I have to do more research on the China-Taiwan situation but on the surface it would appear best that we stay out of it. There comes a point where the government needs to look at the risk-reward of action or inaction. Going to war over Taiwan doesn't really serve any useful purpose to the US that I can see.
 
[quote name='[color=black']kittie[/color]]I believe US war against China will be occurring in the next 10-15 years. It's a war that the US will win easily, and will sadly probably kill millions of the Chinese.[/QUOTE]

The u.s. would certainly win any non mainland conflict (though would recieve plenty of casualties) and taiwan would be borderline (Being so close to china). Any conflict where china was on the defensive would be another matter. The chinese aren't like Iraq, they would have no problem whatsoever gaining support for defense of their country in an already nationalistic nation. They already have an extremely capable military. Any war that entered chinese mainland would be suicide for the u.s. Maybe we'd win militarily (though I doubt it), but we'd never be able to control a country of that size, strength, and anti u.s. sentiment (again, they don't exactly view their government like the iraqi's viewed saddam). Besides, in a war were we attacked first, and without threat to the u.s., there would be massive anti war sentiment, easily more than Iraq and likely stronger than vietnam. And the amount of worldwide opposition would be staggering.

Though for some reason I never pictured lina as a conservative hawk, must have got a makeover when she came back.
 
China isn't really that nationalisty, it's just that they have to be. All of the polls and news reports there are done by the government.

If any nation challenged China's government and invaded the people would revolt instantly.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']China isn't really that nationalisty, it's just that they have to be. All of the polls and news reports there are done by the government.

If any nation challenged China's government and invaded the people would revolt instantly.[/QUOTE]

Because you, or any of us, know anything about how China's people view their government. :roll:
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']China isn't really that nationalisty, it's just that they have to be. All of the polls and news reports there are done by the government.

If any nation challenged China's government and invaded the people would revolt instantly.[/QUOTE]

I think you're just buying our propaganda. From the chinese people I've known (and there are tons of recent immigrants in toronto) that couldn't be further from the truth. And from the reporters and such in china, there is much less concern for any such dramatic change as there was before and after the late 80's and early 90's. Most seem to want change, but there are two things. One, this generation seems less concerned than the previous one about change (probably because there are now more freedoms, though limited, than before), and, two, most appear to feel change can be accomplished (as it has been slowly) within the system.

Though, suggesting that all polls are government polls is incorrect. A lot has changed since the 80's in china.

Though, while cities are becoming increasingly wealthy, the rural areas have been, in many ways, left behind. There has been some improvement, but not as dramatic as other areas. I think you also forget that china has a large amount of immigrants from neighboring countries, many stay there, though some use it as a stepping stone to europe, the u.s. and canada (most of the vietnamese people I know lived in china for a while).
 
I think China has a better chance of changing than Saudi Arabia for example. Change in China would be much more difficult if those who ruled do so through religious means. Perhaps Hong Kong can serve as a good example to them?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Hong Kong isn't going to be [relatively] free for too much longer, mind you.

I give it a decade before China fully reclaims HK.[/QUOTE]

Anything is possible but considering how much they want an apology for past Japanese actions (and making it know to the international community) it would make them look foolish to go back on their word with Hong Kong.
 
China will be a democracy within our lifetime. They are learning from the mistakes of the Soviet Union and are becoming less restrictive of personal freedom and more open to western business.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Anything is possible but considering how much they want an apology for past Japanese actions (and making it know to the international community) it would make them look foolish to go back on their word with Hong Kong.[/QUOTE]
China won't even admit it murdered thousands of peaceful unarmed protestors in 1989, they have no credibility and their word means nothing.

Japan is building up a defense force the sole purpose of defending themselves from China.

China has threatened to use premptive nuclear strikes against the United States if we interfere with their possible invasion of Taiwan.

China is the world's leading providor of slave and child labor.

Don't you get it? The Chinese dictators are dirty pieces of shit, they will do enything for power and economic prosperity, even if it means making children do hard manual labor for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no compensation, no vacation, and only enough food to keep them alive.
 
[quote name='evanft']China will be a democracy within our lifetime. They are learning from the mistakes of the Soviet Union and are becoming less restrictive of personal freedom and more open to western business.[/QUOTE]
I hope so. A war with China, cold or otherwise, would be horrible.
 
[quote name='evanft']China will be a democracy within our lifetime. They are learning from the mistakes of the Soviet Union and are becoming less restrictive of personal freedom and more open to western business.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about that last portion of your comment. My uncle works in China right now and he says that any non-Chinese business MUST be allied/associated with a local (read: Chinese-run) business before said business can establish a foothold in the burgeoning Chinese economy. I myself, being a real estate developer, am in current talks with a few lawyers versed in Chinese law to get a piece of the pie myself but they've mainly told me the same thing - I can't build a building unless it's built by local Chinese contractors and I must 'partner' with a local Chinese real estate firm to do any substantial (read: long term - 20 yrs or beyond) business. I'm trying to find loopholes but so far it's looking like I'll have to cave and partner or stay out of the market. But, the potential of the Chinese market makes it hard for entrepreneurs like me or businesses in general to ignore the huge returns. My only current concern is with the artificial flotation of the yuan. It seriously hurts how much I can stretch the dollar over there. So I don't see the Chinese truly being open to western businesses as opposed to absorbing it first and THEN allowing them to participate in its economy.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']I don't know about that last portion of your comment. My uncle works in China right now and he says that any non-Chinese business MUST be allied/associated with a local (read: Chinese-run) business before said business can establish a foothold in the burgeoning Chinese economy. I myself, being a real estate developer, am in current talks with a few lawyers versed in Chinese law to get a piece of the pie myself but they've mainly told me the same thing - I can't build a building unless it's built by local Chinese contractors and I must 'partner' with a local Chinese real estate firm to do any substantial (read: long term - 20 yrs or beyond) business. I'm trying to find loopholes but so far it's looking like I'll have to cave and partner or stay out of the market. But, the potential of the Chinese market makes it hard for entrepreneurs like me or businesses in general to ignore the huge returns. My only current concern is with the artificial flotation of the yuan. It seriously hurts how much I can stretch the dollar over there. So I don't see the Chinese truly being open to western businesses as opposed to absorbing it first and THEN allowing them to participate in its economy.[/QUOTE]

I've heard similar stories before, it appears that a great number of people are convinced China is a gold mine and China is milking this for all it's worth. I wonder how deep that mine shaft really goes.
 
I think it's smart that the chinese (if this is true, I have no previous knowledge of this) require you to work with chinese businesses. Look what happens in africa and south america. We go in, give the locals low paying jobs, but every other benefit goes back to the rich countries. By making you work with local businesses that is an excellent way to avoid this.

The problem with the soviet model of reform was the complete collapse of the old, not a gradual change over time.

Though most of the "sweatshop" type work has moved out of china, due to the price of labor. More recently companies have been threatening to leave countries such as vietnam, due to increased labor regulations and pay.

Though child labor is illegal in china, and it's occurence is viewed as minor by most international observers when compared to surrounding countries. It still is definately a problem, but the ideo the government is forcing children to work and that china is the worlds leader in slave and child labor (in a numbers game this title belongs to india, with 90 million out the the 250 million worldwide http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/globaleconomy/ns06162003.cfm) is wrong. A problem with the chinese system is the local governments are extremely powerful (the chinese have a saying for this, I'm butchering it but it's along the lines of "the mightiest lion can't slay a common garter snake), and the federal government is afraid that if it applies too much pressure all at once the system itself may collapse. This often results in corrupt local officials protecting criminals and businesses (one that comes to mind is sponsoring a blood drive that resulted in people getting AIDS, and then the local officials covering it up and blaming the victims for not knowing better).
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I think it's smart that the chinese (if this is true, I have no previous knowledge of this) require you to work with chinese businesses. Look what happens in africa and south america. We go in, give the locals low paying jobs, but every other benefit goes back to the rich countries. By making you work with local businesses that is an excellent way to avoid this. [/QUOTE]

I wouldn't exactly call it smart, practices like this have been around for a very, very long time. The only difference is that China has been able to continue such practices while recieving the benefits of "free" trade agreements with the US. Basically they get to have their cake and eat it to.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I wouldn't exactly call it smart, practices like this have been around for a very, very long time. The only difference is that China has been able to continue such practices while recieving the benefits of "free" trade agreements with the US. Basically they get to have their cake and eat it to.[/QUOTE]

And look at all the 3rd world countries that didn't, for one reason or another, follow this model. Due to this china and the population finds itself in a better situation today and for the future, that's worth a lot more than a few american businesses making a few extra bucks. The benefits of free trade are sparse, if any, in many other countries, not least because they often follow stricter rules than the wealthier countries do.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I wouldn't exactly call it smart, practices like this have been around for a very, very long time. The only difference is that China has been able to continue such practices while recieving the benefits of "free" trade agreements with the US. Basically they get to have their cake and eat it to.[/QUOTE]

And that's what makes me hesitant to do business there but, as I said, the allure is deep. And yes, the mine may not be as deep as hoped but, from an entrepreneur's POV, a foothold in a new market can potentially outweight any present loss of income. It's weighing future returns for present cost. Yeah, it's soothsaying on a certain level but, if you've played the field for a bit, you tend to develop a nose for opportunity.

I'm not worried about a local Chinese business sharing in my profit. It's when the government of the business says that any or all of the money I invested there STAYS there. While I understand the need to keep the cash local to infuse the economy with some stimulation, I don't want anyone, be it the US gov or Chinese gov. dictating where I can invest in. If I want to pull out half of my Chinese profits to invest in another market, say an European business, I should have the legal right to do so - especially if it's a legitimate business and not a transit node for illegal activities.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']And look at all the 3rd world countries that didn't, for one reason or another, follow this model. Due to this china and the population finds itself in a better situation today and for the future, that's worth a lot more than a few american businesses making a few extra bucks. The benefits of free trade are sparse, if any, in many other countries, not least because they often follow stricter rules than the wealthier countries do.[/QUOTE]

:lol: The real difference is that China, Japan and Korea were allowed the Luxury of protectionism this time where as China several centuries ago, the middle east and Africa were not. This doesn't have anything to do with intelligence but rather how much bullshit the US and Europe will let you get away with for the sake of promoting capitalism.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']And that's what makes me hesitant to do business there but, as I said, the allure is deep. And yes, the mine may not be as deep as hoped but, from an entrepreneur's POV, a foothold in a new market can potentially outweight any present loss of income. It's weighing future returns for present cost. Yeah, it's soothsaying on a certain level but, if you've played the field for a bit, you tend to develop a nose for opportunity.

I'm not worried about a local Chinese business sharing in my profit. It's when the government of the business says that any or all of the money I invested there STAYS there. While I understand the need to keep the cash local to infuse the economy with some stimulation, I don't want anyone, be it the US gov or Chinese gov. dictating where I can invest in. If I want to pull out half of my Chinese profits to invest in another market, say an European business, I should have the legal right to do so - especially if it's a legitimate business and not a transit node for illegal activities.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't exactly call it opportunity when you follow the path of the last 1,000 with money burning a hole in their pocket. There is money to be made elsewhere in Asia without so many strings attached.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I wouldn't exactly call it opportunity when you follow the path of the last 1,000 with money burning a hole in their pocket. There is money to be made elsewhere in Asia without so many strings attached.[/QUOTE]

While it's true that there's money to be made elsewhere, you can't deny China has huge market potential. The sheer size of the country factored with a population that, in the next 10 years or so, will be full consumers (instead of poor farmers ekking out a living) with money in their pockets burning a hole, that whatever you sell, even under cost, you could potentially get a huge windfall and get your money back in tenfold. And just because I'm interested in China doesn't mean all my energies are devoted to it. Multitasking baby. ;)
 
It does not benefit to a national economy when investors rip out their investments from one country to the next. Who cares about investors rights when compared with the well being of a population? Those rights can wreck havoc on economies, and south america and africa (though africa is made worse by malaria and AIDS) are examples of this.

[quote name='zionoverfire']:lol: The real difference is that China, Japan and Korea were allowed the Luxury of protectionism this time where as China several centuries ago, the middle east and Africa were not. This doesn't have anything to do with intelligence but rather how much bullshit the US and Europe will let you get away with for the sake of promoting capitalism.[/QUOTE]

Above applies here, and the u.s. and europe are more protectionist than they expect poorer countries to be. Most strong economies strike a balance.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']While it's true that there's money to be made elsewhere, you can't deny China has huge market potential. The sheer size of the country factored with a population that, in the next 10 years or so, will be full consumers (instead of poor farmers ekking out a living) with money in their pockets burning a hole, that whatever you sell, even under cost, you could potentially get a huge windfall and get your money back in tenfold. And just because I'm interested in China doesn't mean all my energies are devoted to it. Multitasking baby. ;)[/QUOTE]

I really don't see those poor farmers and workers becoming a huge consuming force that soon, look at Japan quite developed and they could do a whole lot more consuming. I've just noticed the vast quantities of money flowing into projects in China and I wonder how much of it is justified.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It does not benefit to a national economy when investors rip out their investments from one country to the next. Who cares about investors rights when compared with the well being of a population? Those rights can wreck havoc on economies, and south america and africa (though africa is made worse by malaria and AIDS) are examples of this.



Above applies here, and the u.s. and europe are more protectionist than they expect poorer countries to be. Most strong economies strike a balance.[/QUOTE]

While it's understandable to be overly protective of its economy, there's really no reason to be so restrictive in China. The sheer size of the population will ensure that if I decide not to do any business over there, you can bet your ass that somebody else will. China's in the driver's seat and I don't see them being ousted (passively) anytime soon. There's just too much money at stake and with that many chips on the table, it's too big a prize for any one business to ignore. I only see China basically saying you can't have any cake here unless you use my utensils and ingredients.

[quote name='zionoverfire']I really don't see those poor farmers and workers becoming a huge consuming force that soon, look at Japan quite developed and they could do a whole lot more consuming. I've just noticed the vast quantities of money flowing into projects in China and I wonder how much of it is justified.[/QUOTE]

Well, you can't really compare Japan and China in terms of their farmers since China is a vastly wider area of land. Thus, the more modernization that happens, less manual labor, thus ensuring that the profits are retained by the farmer (with the PRC collective getting its cut of course) so they will for the first time have disposable income to spend. Japan also has the distinction of being a representative republic with a governing body that was modeled after the Dutch in contrast to China's communism. Japanese consumption is market based while (with the PRC artificially floating the value of the yuan) keeps prices fixed at a certain level. With China's farmers getting money, of course, the PRC will want to keep that yuan at home and thus advertising to the locals to keep their money in local products ensures that money stays home.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It does not benefit to a national economy when investors rip out their investments from one country to the next. Who cares about investors rights when compared with the well being of a population? Those rights can wreck havoc on economies, and south america and africa (though africa is made worse by malaria and AIDS) are examples of this.



Above applies here, and the u.s. and europe are more protectionist than they expect poorer countries to be. Most strong economies strike a balance.[/QUOTE]

Which is why a set of rules where established by the more important countries, ironically while south america and africa have been held to these standards China has been allowed to ignore them just as Japan was. This isn't a case of China doing anything impressive but rather China doing something and the US and Europe turning a blind eye to promote capitalism.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Which is why a set of rules where established by the more important countries, ironically while south america and africa have been held to these standards China has been allowed to ignore them just as Japan was. This isn't a case of China doing anything impressive but rather China doing something and the US and Europe turning a blind eye to promote capitalism.[/QUOTE]


But the rules that south america and africa have been held to need a major revision, and you should not be drawing other countries into that. The policies that south america and africa have been held to have been, for the most part, disasterous.

I think you've overly focused on one thing. He was saying that you have to work with chinese businesses, that is not necessarily the same in other protectionist economies. It appears you think the my use of the term smart was applied to simply the idea of a protectionist economy, and not something more specific.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I wouldn't exactly call it opportunity when you follow the path of the last 1,000 with money burning a hole in their pocket. There is money to be made elsewhere in Asia without so many strings attached.[/QUOTE]

And without selling your soul to the Devil. I have no problem with the people but the government and what complete and utter scum they are.
IF China at least cleaned up their Human Rights record and I had a business I MIGHT consider doing it to a very limited extent.
Also in general people need to listen to Thom Hartmann about stuff like this, how we should be pulling out common industry that we could do in the U.S. in the U.S. so the $ stays and we have as much of a maximum Middle Class as possible. Of course I'm sure Fascists like Bush and his Corporate cronies wouldn't like that though.
Now on the subject of China really becoming Capitalist I'm surprised they haven't. Consider China becoming Capitalist is even MORE of a threat to us economically. I mean consider them taking most of those rules and regulations off and watch business POUR into China. China is a definite threat to us there in terms of becoming the superpower economically AND militarily.
Now consider we'd have to bow to their demands like the rest of the world bows to ours to some extent. The ONLY benefit I can see out of this is finally assholes like Rush Limbaugh and so on will understand why Europeans and the like bitch about Bush and their Foreign Policy towards nations like Africa and the Kyoto Treaty, etc. It's bigger than that but those are just a few MINOR examples. Personally I'd just as soon revert to the idea that countries have the RIGHT to look after their own best interest, the interest of the people like Mohammed Mosadeq was doing when he wanted to nationalize Iran's Oil fields.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Now on the subject of China really becoming Capitalist I'm surprised they haven't. Consider China becoming Capitalist is even MORE of a threat to us economically. I mean consider them taking most of those rules and regulations off and watch business POUR into China. China is a definite threat to us there in terms of becoming the superpower economically AND militarily.[/QUOTE]

However, if people are working for 12-15 hours a day, day after day, the quality will suffer (they don't care as much, get tired, etc)

When the call centers moved to India, there was an immediate savings. However soon the Indians got sick of working odd hours for long periods of time, and moved into traditional software jobs. Now the call center jobs are getting transferred to Asian Pacific islands/Phillipines.

I agree that America's government has become more concerned with granting favors to the super-rich then protecting middle-class rights, however I don't think China's full-time subjugation of the poor is a viable long-term captalistic strategy.
 
[quote name='camoor']However, if people are working for 12-15 hours a day, day after day, the quality will suffer (they don't care as much, get tired, etc)

When the call centers moved to India, there was an immediate savings. However soon the Indians got sick of working odd hours for long periods of time, and moved into traditional software jobs. Now the call center jobs are getting transferred to Asian Pacific islands/Phillipines.

I agree that America's government has become more concerned with granting favors to the super-rich then protecting middle-class rights, however I don't think China's full-time subjugation of the poor is a viable long-term captalistic strategy.[/QUOTE]

The call centers might come back to the US if more rumblings about personal info leaks keep up. One of my friends who works at a telcom (sounds like flomblast) tells me about how the higher ups are considering bring back the centers to the US to preserve personal data. Apparently, the recent leak of personal info from an Indian call center (i forgot from which company) caused quite a stir. Although, personally, I think they'll just shift to a slightly more expensive (but cheaper than the US but almost as trustworthy) location (mexico? canada?)
 
I doubt call centers would move to any european or european dominated country. Canada wouldn't be much of a savings compared to the u.s., plus they'd be more likely to have to deal with unions. Now mexico is possible though.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']The call centers might come back to the US if more rumblings about personal info leaks keep up. One of my friends who works at a telcom (sounds like flomblast) tells me about how the higher ups are considering bring back the centers to the US to preserve personal data. Apparently, the recent leak of personal info from an Indian call center (i forgot from which company) caused quite a stir. Although, personally, I think they'll just shift to a slightly more expensive (but cheaper than the US but almost as trustworthy) location (mexico? canada?)[/QUOTE]

Jack: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Jack: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman: Which car company do you work for?
Jack: A major one.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But the rules that south america and africa have been held to need a major revision, and you should not be drawing other countries into that. The policies that south america and africa have been held to have been, for the most part, disasterous.

I think you've overly focused on one thing. He was saying that you have to work with chinese businesses, that is not necessarily the same in other protectionist economies. It appears you think the my use of the term smart was applied to simply the idea of a protectionist economy, and not something more specific.[/QUOTE]

No I wasn't thinking about protectionism in general. This strategy is nothing new, it was used quite recently by other countries in asia (Japan, Korea) and has been around long before then. China mearly jumped on the band wagon.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']The call centers might come back to the US if more rumblings about personal info leaks keep up. One of my friends who works at a telcom (sounds like flomblast) tells me about how the higher ups are considering bring back the centers to the US to preserve personal data. Apparently, the recent leak of personal info from an Indian call center (i forgot from which company) caused quite a stir. Although, personally, I think they'll just shift to a slightly more expensive (but cheaper than the US but almost as trustworthy) location (mexico? canada?)[/QUOTE]
I'd lean tword heartland america as the next technology hub. Call centers, programmers, & consulting firms are starting to accelerate thier presence in these areas as the cost of living expenses are substancially cheaper there (i.e they can pay thier workers much less than say a job in the Northeast). Granted the labor cost are not as cheap as say India, but there is no language barrier to contend with plus they have the added image of 'Buying American' so to speak.
 
China is definately smart. While keeping your money and controlling who you use to partner with, it ensures that China holds your money, while the larger Chinese companies buy American land and establish their businesses over here. This war is a real estate one.

The seeds of war are being planted. Perhaps not with China but definately on a global scale. However, the strategy may be economic. I tip the scale in favor of whichever side is smart enough to enlist computer hackers into their army.
 
[quote name='neopolss']China is definately smart. While keeping your money and controlling who you use to partner with, it ensures that China holds your money, while the larger Chinese companies buy American land and establish their businesses over here. This war is a real estate one.[/QUOTE]

I agree that it will be all about the real estate - hence my willingness to be in that market as early as possible.

[quote name='CappyCobra']I'd lean tword heartland america as the next technology hub. Call centers, programmers, & consulting firms are starting to accelerate thier presence in these areas as the cost of living expenses are substancially cheaper there (i.e they can pay thier workers much less than say a job in the Northeast). Granted the labor cost are not as cheap as say India, but there is no language barrier to contend with plus they have the added image of 'Buying American' so to speak.[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting point of view and one I've not heard before. That's something I will tell my friend about.

[quote name='camoor']Jack: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Business woman: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
Jack: You wouldn't believe.
Business woman: Which car company do you work for?
Jack: A major one.[/QUOTE]

:lol::applause:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top