The Chinese way of economics

[gaelic cowboy]

Giving Burma money to buy stuff isn't the idea discussed in the article, Husar.

The way outlined to improve their economy is what you called "letting it develop naturally", or in other words, increasing imports from Burma.

Where did this rubbish come from that we can change a country by buying goods from them, the west bought plenty from USSR and they were still intent on expanding there empire and nazi Germany was hardly a technological or economic backwater.

[HoreTore]

Where did this rubbish come from that we can change a country by buying goods from them, the west bought plenty from USSR and they were still intent on expanding there empire and nazi Germany was hardly a technological or economic backwater.

..............

What on earth are you talking about?

[gaelic cowboy]

..............

What on earth are you talking about?

It's clearly an idea you subscribe too or you would not have posted the OP in the first place, "letting it develop naturally" as you quoted/paraphrased from the article is one of these ideas people have about China, somehow if we buy widgets from them they will be nice to there own and us.

[HoreTore]

It's clearly an idea you subscribe too or you would not have posted the OP in the first place, "letting it develop naturally" as you quoted/paraphrased from the article is one of these ideas people have about China, somehow if we buy widgets from them they will be nice to there own and us.

No, you missed the point entirely.

This is about economic development, and the economies in question are Burma and Chinas other southern neighbors, which in turn will indirectly improve China's own economy.

Political change has nothing to do with this.

In fact, it has little to do with China either, as its about a universal economic idea that can be applied anywhere, and which is applied in several places besides here, most notably in the EU.

[gaelic cowboy]

No, you missed the point entirely.

This is about economic development, and the economies in question are Burma and Chinas other southern neighbors, which in turn will indirectly improve China's own economy.

Political change has nothing to do with this.

In fact, it has little to do with China either, as its about a universal economic idea that can be applied anywhere, and which is applied in several places besides here, most notably in the EU.

No I didn't miss it I understood it completely for the propaganda piece it was, and this so called universal economic idea is bunkum were dealing with an aggressive dictatorial power here.

The only parallels we have in the EU are eastern europe and it does not really fit as they were democratic we merely helped them stay democratic, China is still a dictatorship and as such views economics purely through the same means.

[HoreTore]

Eh, what?

Are you saying that trade does not improve an economy, or are you saying that expanding markets does not improve an economy?

Both are completely wrong though.

[gaelic cowboy]

Eh, what?

Are you saying that trade does not improve an economy, or are you saying that expanding markets does not improve an economy?

Both are completely wrong though.

Eh no I never said that

I am talking about how China is talking pure rubbish about blah blah economic development, and I am also talking about how you swallowed every bit of it cos it chimes with a particular theory espoused a lot today.

The theory goes that trade fosters better relations and increases democracy and all the goodstuff, it's an insane theory and has been proven over and over to not be true yet it still pops up.

The fact that the EU fostered development of Eastern Europe has zero in common with China and her neighbours, Europe both East and West were democratic while China is not and neither is Burma.

If you continue to persist viewing this in purely economic terms then in end you will find China has eaten your lunch and the only thing left to eat is you.

[HoreTore]

The theory goes that trade fosters better relations and increases democracy and all the goodstuff, it's an insane theory and has been proven over and over to not be true yet it still pops up.

And I have never believed in it either.

Gah, why bother?

I'd be happy to discuss the views and opinions I have. I don't see much point in debating opinions I don't have.

[gaelic cowboy]

And I have never believed in it either.

Gah, why bother?

I'd be happy to discuss the views and opinions I have. I don't see much point in debating opinions I don't have.

Then why post the link in your first post?? why talk of Win/Win which is a new buzzword that pops up regular in regard to China.

The world may not be zero sum but the consequences are not necessarily benign.

[HoreTore]

Because I believe that economic cooperation with other countries boost ones own economy. Which is what the article was about.

Political change is someting quite different, and something I haven't mentioned.

Also, "win/win" was "win/win" for china in this case, not "win/win" for the western world.

[gaelic cowboy]

Because I believe that economic cooperation with other countries boost ones own economy. Which is what the article was about.

Political change is someting quite different, and something I haven't mentioned.

Also, "win/win" was "win/win" for china in this case, not "win/win" for the western world.

The article contends it is about cooperation but anyone with half a brain understands it is merely China securing resources and ensuring access for her navy in Burma.

win/win for the EU is more like importation of brazilian beef to the EU and the export of EU services to same, win/win for China is "win" for me on cheap goods and "win" for them on human rights, there not the same.

[HoreTore]

...............

[Tellos Athenaios]

One thing to keep in mind is how much of the economy of these cooperating countries is actually run by Chinese nationals or has close ties with Chinese nationals. For instance the economy of northern Laos is almost entirely based on Chinese investments (by private Chinese businessmen) who can evade some Chinese laws (for instance the laws on [no] casinos) there.

On the whole I agree that this is probably long term investment decision for China: to let these economies develop rather than compete with them so standard of living rises which in turn should create a market for more Chinese goods. It might even be a way to siphon off some of the excess wealth generated in China so China can stave off inflation a bit longer .

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ah, so you're not really forcing anyone to treat anyone then.

One issue is that Congress limits the amount of doctors in training (being a medical resident) it sponsors, due to pressure from the AMA who feared that a glut of doctors would drive their wages down. And we also force foreign doctors to go through this training to practice here. The AMA also fought to prevent new medical schools from opening.

What I meant by my statement is that everyone and anyone should be given needed full treatment whether or not they have no insurance, are illegal, or have the best insurance in the world. If there is a man or woman in need of medical attention in a hospital, there should be no reason whatsoever for a doctor not to treat the person unless the patient declines treatment.

So, years in training and mounds of debt don't count?

CR

I think medical school should be subsidized. I also think that we should sponsor more doctors in training and open up new medical school. Foreign doctors I think should have to go through training to practice here. Different standards are sometimes incompatible with each other.

However, the cost of the doctors themselves are nothing compared to the real costs, which are the costs of the supplies and the medical equipment used.

[Subotan]

However, the cost of the doctors themselves are nothing compared to the real costs, which are the costs of the supplies and the medical equipment used.

As well as over-treatment - although I dislike anecdotal evidence, my British aunt's experiences as a doctor in the United States have been that over-treatment is not just common but the norm, and that American patients would view British levels of treatment, scans, meds, surgery etc. as rather underwhelming.

[Jolt]

Am I the only one getting a Vuk-y vibe from hore tore?

If there isn't a chest thumping contest where Europeans are viewed as cowardly girly-men, then no. Those discussions make for great lulz.

I think medical school should be subsidized.

COMMUNIST! xD