Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

The vast majority of Chinese products sold in America are essentially disposable items.

Please name 3 quality, high tech Chinese made items available to the American consumer.

The way you frame your arguments is pretty funny. I have 100 watt audio amplifiers I purchased from China for $2.50 each. They use Texas Instrument chips. I don't know which TI manufacturing location made these particular chips. Could be Texas. Could be Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Germany, or even China. Global supply chains are so interconnected that I don't know how a person could answer your question. It makes a lot more sense to speak in terms of comparative advantages between countries than finished good product quality. 

Those $2.50 amplifiers produce ruler flat frequency responses. I can buy much more expensive and energy hungry amplifiers but they won't produce a superior frequency response that a human ear can detect. Some people will claim they can hear a difference but they can't prove it in blind testing (which means they're imagining things.) 

However, where do I place the real value -- as a consumer -- on my Chinese purchase transaction? Access. Prior to modern global trade markets and Alibaba style facilitators I wouldn't be able to buy individual electronic components at similar quality and price in tiny quantities. 

 Basically, Trumpian Trade Theory is 1) ignorant, and 2) a punchline. Everything is made everywhere, everyone buys from everyone, even at the nano-economic level of a DIYer building bespoke hi-fi speaker arrays. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

21 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

The US & the West in general isn't 'behind' in 5g. They're just developing a far superior system that even China's telecommunication companies want to be a part of. If Huawei's product is so superior, why are their own telecommunications signing up for the O-ran consortium?

The US was opposing 5G, if not mistaken, instead of acknowledging the progress of speed and functions and embracing it ....... O-ran might be a joint venture between Europe and China?? China shares it with Europe and vice versa??  US is isolating itself by making enemies with all major power of the world except Japan? Japan is the leading country in all major technological advancement even though all the work might have been done in the US.  They pay the research, make all micro-parts and pioneer the results, a very good strategy or methodology called leverage and monopolize. The products are usually in premium quality and superior in price. These make them a winner with no close competitor from all sides.............(until they choose to outsource their services or set up factories else where in developing world ...........) China might have not reach the gate of generosity like Japan due to the size of population in the country. The quality of overall outputs is usually under par of premium, hence, low in competitive threat. Could the hostility towards the country is a mistaken aim due to the identical looks across countries in Asia?? Or  could there be something else underneath it?? What could it be??                                                                                     image.png.787443705f97c4674d0ac0d711aa810a.png

Edited by specinho
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

The way you frame your arguments is pretty funny. I have 100 watt audio amplifiers I purchased from China for $2.50 each. They use Texas Instrument chips. I don't know which TI manufacturing location made these particular chips. Could be Texas. Could be Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Germany, or even China. Global supply chains are so interconnected that I don't know how a person could answer your question. It makes a lot more sense to speak in terms of comparative advantages between countries than finished good product quality. 

Those $2.50 amplifiers produce ruler flat frequency responses. I can buy much more expensive and energy hungry amplifiers but they won't produce a superior frequency response that a human ear can detect. Some people will claim they can hear a difference but they can't prove it in blind testing (which means they're imagining things.) 

However, where do I place the real value -- as a consumer -- on my Chinese purchase transaction? Access. Prior to modern global trade markets and Alibaba style facilitators I wouldn't be able to buy individual electronic components at similar quality and price in tiny quantities. 

 Basically, Trumpian Trade Theory is 1) ignorant, and 2) a punchline. Everything is made everywhere, everyone buys from everyone, even at the nano-economic level of a DIYer building bespoke hi-fi speaker arrays. 

That is coming to an end because of a longstanding imbalance of demand and production capacity and a declining trend of demand. It is not getting better, it is getting worse, and set to accelerate now that C19 struck, while EU would have collapsed demand funding in 2 years when mass retirements kicked in anyway. China is the largest component of imbalance having policy driven capture of industries to provide political leverage. Thus China has about 1/3 of industrial capacity beyond its ability to consume locally or export internationally at a profit. They are essentially at the point of taking in useful commodity inputs and making trash that might as well have been dumped into the Mariana trench. Essentially, that production is an employment program, now failed, that costs them money to dispose of the production..

As regarding your switching chip amp, the pricing is that of capital flight using liquidation of inventories as an avenue to obtain the dollars. The local funding for the production runs was made by borrowing against collateral that the owner can not sell. The loans will not be repaid and the dollar cash will not be repatriated to China. .The wholesale cost of the TI chip in the amp is higher than what you paid for the entire amp.  Like the rest of China industry, it is not a sustainable proposition. Enjoy it while you can.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, specinho said:

The US was opposing 5G, if not mistaken, instead of acknowledging the progress of speed and functions and embracing it ....... O-ran might be a joint venture between Europe and China?? China shares it with Europe and vice versa??  US is isolating itself by making enemies with all major power of the world except Japan? Japan is the leading country in all major technological advancement even though all the work might have been done in the US.  They pay the research, make all micro-parts and pioneer the results, a very good strategy or methodology called leverage and monopolize. The products are usually in premium quality and superior in price. These make them a winner with no close competitor from all sides.............(until they choose to outsource their services or set up factories else where in developing world ...........) China might have not reach the gate of generosity like Japan due to the size of population in the country. The quality of overall outputs is usually under par of premium, hence, low in competitive threat. Could the hostility towards the country is a mistaken aim due to the identical looks across countries in Asia?? Or  could there be something else underneath it?? What could it be??                                                                                    

The US idea of 5G is very short wave in order to get very high signal density. The Chinese 5G is 3.5 GHz and is fast relative to 4G and marginally faster than 4G LTE. The holdup with the US (and EU) technology is that microwaves do not penetrate surfaces.So there need to be a swarm of antennae and in each car and building a "retransmitter" into a wi fi  signal.

Chinese 5G is just like Sprint's 4G LTE network relabeled 5G at 1 GHz. It is just 3 times faster. It is also not the kind of network anyone really needs. It does not allow the industrial internet data volume and density requirements.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, specinho said:

The US was opposing 5G, if not mistaken, instead of acknowledging the progress of speed and functions and embracing it ....... O-ran might be a joint venture between Europe and China?? China shares it with Europe and vice versa??  US is isolating itself by making enemies with all major power of the world except Japan? Japan is the leading country in all major technological advancement even though all the work might have been done in the US.  They pay the research, make all micro-parts and pioneer the results, a very good strategy or methodology called leverage and monopolize. The products are usually in premium quality and superior in price. These make them a winner with no close competitor from all sides.............(until they choose to outsource their services or set up factories else where in developing world ...........) China might have not reach the gate of generosity like Japan due to the size of population in the country. The quality of overall outputs is usually under par of premium, hence, low in competitive threat. Could the hostility towards the country is a mistaken aim due to the identical looks across countries in Asia?? Or  could there be something else underneath it?? What could it be??                                                                                     image.png.787443705f97c4674d0ac0d711aa810a.png

You obviously didn’t bother reviewing what O-Ran even is.  I did post a link, you can lead a horse to water....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

That is coming to an end because of a longstanding imbalance of demand and production capacity and a declining trend of demand. It is not getting better, it is getting worse, and set to accelerate now that C19 struck, while EU would have collapsed demand funding in 2 years when mass retirements kicked in anyway. China is the largest component of imbalance having policy driven capture of industries to provide political leverage. Thus China has about 1/3 of industrial capacity beyond its ability to consume locally or export internationally at a profit. They are essentially at the point of taking in useful commodity inputs and making trash that might as well have been dumped into the Mariana trench. Essentially, that production is an employment program, now failed, that costs them money to dispose of the production..

As regarding your switching chip amp, the pricing is that of capital flight using liquidation of inventories as an avenue to obtain the dollars. The local funding for the production runs was made by borrowing against collateral that the owner can not sell. The loans will not be repaid and the dollar cash will not be repatriated to China. .The wholesale cost of the TI chip in the amp is higher than what you paid for the entire amp.  Like the rest of China industry, it is not a sustainable proposition. Enjoy it while you can.

Good call, I did use a switching power source. Again, no human ear can hear the difference. Bulk price on the TI chip is $1.50 

https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/texas-instruments/TPA3116D2QDADRQ1/296-42540-2-ND/5428832

So, for consumers, free global trading system value aggregates in the form of lower prices. We're all consumers so we all benefit. Sometimes people have a hard time distinguishing between, "how much did we make from manufacturing stuff" and, "how much does the stuff we want to buy cost." But it's the same thing at the macro level, the US generates value with agricultural IP/services and we trade it for cheap TVs. 

You know what, it's not the same thing. My car analogy applies here. You can add horsepower to your car with a turbo or you can lightweight to arrive at an equivalent power to weight ratio. But lightweighting provides a lot of extra benefits like reducing tire wear, reducing brake wear, etc. Lower consumer goods prices is like lightweighting, it makes the system as a whole work better. 

Now, in terms of a domestic economic wealth growing strategy we might take a look at endogenous growth theory. I'm not saying EGT is true just because the author won a Nobel Prize, but I am saying the fact he won a Nobel Prize for the theory makes the theory worth considering. In which case, protectionist trade policy leading to farm bailouts works in opposition to a long term national wealth growing strategy. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_growth_theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

It sounds like you're shooting from the hip. 

Here, read through this RAND document titled Countering Russian Social Media Influence then get back to me afterward to let me know if you think your theory still has merit in the context of foreign disinformation campaigns. Or, if you think you have a superior resource please share. 

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2700/RR2740/RAND_RR2740.pdf

Do you really need at study to know that when  yell out f-Trump or f-Biden ~half the rooms going to cheer and half gets very upset? I don’t need a million dollar study to tell me the obvious.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Do you really need at study to know that when  yell out f-Trump or f-Biden ~half the rooms going to cheer and half gets very upset? I don’t need a million dollar study to tell me the obvious.

Do you really need to lecture people when you just pull things out of your butt? I mean, go ahead and pull things out of your ass just don't lecture other people when you do it. 

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2020 at 8:44 AM, Piotr Berman said:

...I can confidently predict that there would be a period with no toasters in American retail...

Holman Toastmaster TP409. Made in America.

250 slices per hour!!

https://www.katom.com/853-TP409.html

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Do you really need to lecture people when you just pull things out of your butt? I mean, go ahead and pull things out of your ass just don't lecture other people when you do it. 

And your not ‘lecturing’ people when you’re pulling it out of your butt about how Trump is a idiot from your point of view? Do you have a study proving this?  Wow, I learned it by watching you! 🙂

Edited by Strangelovesurfing
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Good call, I did use a switching power source. Again, no human ear can hear the difference. Bulk price on the TI chip is $1.50 

https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/texas-instruments/TPA3116D2QDADRQ1/296-42540-2-ND/5428832

So, for consumers, free global trading system value aggregates in the form of lower prices. We're all consumers so we all benefit. Sometimes people have a hard time distinguishing between, "how much did we make from manufacturing stuff" and, "how much does the stuff we want to buy cost." But it's the same thing at the macro level, the US generates value with agricultural IP/services and we trade it for cheap TVs. 

You know what, it's not the same thing. My car analogy applies here. You can add horsepower to your car with a turbo or you can lightweight to arrive at an equivalent power to weight ratio. But lightweighting provides a lot of extra benefits like reducing tire wear, reducing brake wear, etc. Lower consumer goods prices is like lightweighting, it makes the system as a whole work better. 

Now, in terms of a domestic economic wealth growing strategy we might take a look at endogenous growth theory. I'm not saying EGT is true just because the author won a Nobel Prize, but I am saying the fact he won a Nobel Prize for the theory makes the theory worth considering. In which case, protectionist trade policy leading to farm bailouts works in opposition to a long term national wealth growing strategy. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En

 

That is not a wrong way to think about it if you had a functional economy in China. But it isn't quite that. It is driven in large part by strategic policy where the control of key industries internationally is the core driver of business, rather than the production being more valuable than the inputs to it, i.e. profits. Thus we have large amounts of Chinese products on the international market that are not priced to cover their costs. Meaning that non China consumers are being subsidized by both capital losses and labor cost suppression within China. While that is very common in the SOE sector, it turns out that much of China's private exports since 2013 are just a surreptitious way to get around capital controls. Often the result desired by the exporter isn't even to cover the costs but to transmit the capital out of the country into dollars and then assets held abroad, while not paying for the domestic costs in China, which were covered by borrowing against an asset (usually real estate) that could not be liquidated and the proceeds taken into dollars outside the country. The loan was never intended to be paid back and the production run was never meant to produce a profit, just minimize the loss upon its sale relative to the value of the domestic Chinese property.  You can think of it as a capital exit tax which is exacted as a loss on the manufacturing.

Thus consumers may be enjoying a free ride at the expense of Chinese wealth, banks, their depositors, and often employees and at the expense of their domestic producers who are put out of business, and then your strategic dependency on Chinese monopoly products ending your country's ability to practice foreign policy.

 

Edited by 0R0
  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

That is not a wrong way to think about it if you had a functional economy in China. But it isn't quite that. It is driven in large part by strategic policy where the control of key industries internationally is the core driver of business, rather than the production being more valuable than the inputs to it, i.e. profits. Thus we have large amounts of Chinese products on the international market that are not priced to cover their costs. Meaning that non China consumers are being subsidized by both capital losses and labor cost suppression within China. While that is very common in the SOE sector, it turns out that much of China's private exports since 2013 are just a surreptitious way to get around capital controls. Often the result desired by the exporter isn't even to cover the costs but to transmit the capital out of the country into dollars and then assets held abroad, while not paying for the domestic costs in China, which were covered by borrowing against an asset (usually real estate) that could not be liquidated and the proceeds taken into dollars outside the country. The loan was never intended to be paid back and the production run was never meant to produce a profit, just minimize the loss upon its sale relative to the value of the domestic Chinese property.  You can think of it as a capital exit tax which is exacted as a loss on the manufacturing.

Thus consumers may be enjoying a free ride at the expense of Chinese wealth, banks, their depositors, and often employees and at the expense of their domestic producers who are put out of business, and then your strategic dependency on Chinese monopoly products ending your country's ability to practice foreign policy.

 

Rare Earths are a strange one also. The production destroys huge areas of the country that will take 50 lifetimes to regenerate. All that for a few billion a year and a false sense of power, seems to be a huge loss. People in China should be pissed

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

And your not ‘lecturing’ people when you’re pulling it out of your butt about how Trump is a idiot from your point of view? Do you have a study proving this?  Wow, I learned it by watching you! 🙂

You came into this claiming to understand what hostile foreign actors are working to accomplish and then proposed a behavior response. When challenged with a legit document on the subject you retreated to "but muh common sense." So, no dude, you're in a corner and you need to decide if you want to nut up and read the document or keep trying to weasel out of your embarrassing situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, 0R0 said:

That is not a wrong way to think about it if you had a functional economy in China. But it isn't quite that. It is driven in large part by strategic policy where the control of key industries internationally is the core driver of business, rather than the production being more valuable than the inputs to it, i.e. profits. Thus we have large amounts of Chinese products on the international market that are not priced to cover their costs. Meaning that non China consumers are being subsidized by both capital losses and labor cost suppression within China. While that is very common in the SOE sector, it turns out that much of China's private exports since 2013 are just a surreptitious way to get around capital controls. Often the result desired by the exporter isn't even to cover the costs but to transmit the capital out of the country into dollars and then assets held abroad, while not paying for the domestic costs in China, which were covered by borrowing against an asset (usually real estate) that could not be liquidated and the proceeds taken into dollars outside the country. The loan was never intended to be paid back and the production run was never meant to produce a profit, just minimize the loss upon its sale relative to the value of the domestic Chinese property.  You can think of it as a capital exit tax which is exacted as a loss on the manufacturing.

Thus consumers may be enjoying a free ride at the expense of Chinese wealth, banks, their depositors, and often employees and at the expense of their domestic producers who are put out of business, and then your strategic dependency on Chinese monopoly products ending your country's ability to practice foreign policy.

Hence, endogenous growth theory (if it is accurate and useful) and long term economic growth policy. The proper response is not causing self harm through protectionist trade policy -- and we also know it is impulsive, incoherent trade policy under Trump, agreed? -- but investing in the elements that lead to long term growth. 

Edited by BradleyPNW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not embarrassed at all, you really take this stuff too seriously. If you think coming in hot with insults off the bat is going to help you make make points for people to ponder later, thats a strange way of doing things, but suit yourself.
 

You can find a study backing up any point you wish to make on the internet. Good job finding one that backs up your existing belief structure. I’m sure google is impressed. 🙃 kisses 😘 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

Hence, endogenous growth theory (if it is accurate and useful) and long term economic growth policy. The proper response is not causing self harm through protectionist trade policy -- and we also know it is impulsive, incoherent trade policy under Trump, agreed? -- but investing in the elements that lead to long term growth. 

That is not what I am saying.

China never did "trade" with anyone. They did military strategy in economic drag. There should never have been a trade relationship with them. Their goal was to strategically remove industries from the West so that they are dependent on China and subject to its manipulation. It is atomic war to destroy your enemy's production capacity by economic means.

Isolating from China is a necessary security issue. Isolating economically from anyone who continues doing business with China is also necessary in all issues of technology and strategic materials.

There was never a real gain from long term economic engagement with China once the old guard hard liners came out of the woodwork and pushed aside the reformers. As that was over a decade ago, it is clear that the comatose Obama foreign policy was nowhere near urgent enough in its efforts despite understanding what is going on. Business opposition to Trump's attempts to reign in the China militarization of trade was astounding in its depth and breadth. They never got the message that it was not about the trade itself.

There is no shooting yourself in the foot by squashing trade with China.

As usual, you understand things upside down and prioritize the little over the large. The incremental consumer well being during a short window over existence.

.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

but investing in the elements that lead to long term growth

Yeah, in China 🇨🇳 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phenomenon is part of mercantilism, if not economic protectionism, which unfortunately works against the U.S. because the dollar is used as a global reserve currency and is probably what allows the country to maintain its expensive military. It also goes against decades of Reaganomics, which wants neo-liberalism and has allowed Wall Street to control both political parties.

BRICS and forty emerging markets have been trying to move away from the dollar, preferring a basket of currencies and trade with each other.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, 0R0 said:

That is not what I am saying.

China never did "trade" with anyone. They did military strategy in economic drag. There should never have been a trade relationship with them. Their goal was to strategically remove industries from the West so that they are dependent on China and subject to its manipulation. It is atomic war to destroy your enemy's production capacity by economic means.

Isolating from China is a necessary security issue. Isolating economically from anyone who continues doing business with China is also necessary in all issues of technology and strategic materials.

There was never a real gain from long term economic engagement with China once the old guard hard liners came out of the woodwork and pushed aside the reformers. As that was over a decade ago, it is clear that the comatose Obama foreign policy was nowhere near urgent enough in its efforts despite understanding what is going on. Business opposition to Trump's attempts to reign in the China militarization of trade was astounding in its depth and breadth. They never got the message that it was not about the trade itself.

There is no shooting yourself in the foot by squashing trade with China.

As usual, you understand things upside down and prioritize the little over the large. The incremental consumer well being during a short window over existence.

.

An excellent post.  You succinctly touched on fundamental big picture (huge!) issues on BOTH sides of the coin.

Edited by Dan Warnick
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 0R0 said:

That is not what I am saying.

China never did "trade" with anyone. They did military strategy in economic drag. There should never have been a trade relationship with them. Their goal was to strategically remove industries from the West so that they are dependent on China and subject to its manipulation. It is atomic war to destroy your enemy's production capacity by economic means.

Isolating from China is a necessary security issue. Isolating economically from anyone who continues doing business with China is also necessary in all issues of technology and strategic materials.

There was never a real gain from long term economic engagement with China once the old guard hard liners came out of the woodwork and pushed aside the reformers. As that was over a decade ago, it is clear that the comatose Obama foreign policy was nowhere near urgent enough in its efforts despite understanding what is going on. Business opposition to Trump's attempts to reign in the China militarization of trade was astounding in its depth and breadth. They never got the message that it was not about the trade itself.

There is no shooting yourself in the foot by squashing trade with China.

As usual, you understand things upside down and prioritize the little over the large. The incremental consumer well being during a short window over existence.

Endogenous growth theory indicates China's misbehavior does not have long term impacts on the US economy. Is EGT wrong? Maybe. But if one wants to make the case EGT is wrong then I'd like to see the competing theory and academic citations. Otherwise it's bar banter. 

The geopolitical questions are a separate issue. They also point toward Donald's incoherent trade policy. Are we engaging in protectionist trade policy to help our economy or as a geopolitical strategy? Answer from his surrogates: "we're don't know because his policy is impulsive and we're leaning heavily on confirmation bias to create an explanation of his policy after the fact." 

In regard to a coherent geopolitical action designed to counter China in the sphere of economic trade we had a plan in place to create and join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Donald cancelled US involvement in the TPP immediately without supplying a rational explanation. Impulse. Insanity. Incoherence. Did Obama have to fight against Republicans to get TPP moving? No. Obama had to fight the left. So why did Donald side with the Bernie Sanders wingnuts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2020 at 12:41 PM, BradleyPNW said:

I can buy much more expensive and energy hungry amplifiers but they won't produce a superior frequency response that a human ear can detect. Some people will claim they can hear a difference but they can't prove it in blind testing (which means they're imagining things.) 

I suspect you'd have no problems telling the difference between a 22 watt tube amp I have, that cost way too much, and a 300 watt chip driven system, even with the same speaker cab.

For getting a neutral flat response, I personally prefer the inexpensive solid state machine. But for how that 22 watt system reacts to analog inputs from a guitar, how it struggles when it's overdriven or receives a distorted signal, huge audio difference. With expensive emulation software you can shrink the difference, but it's still there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

21 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

You obviously didn’t bother reviewing what O-Ran even is.  I did post a link, you can lead a horse to water....

May be what i have seen might not be what you understand ??

Quote

Search Results

Web result with site links

O-RAN Alliance members and contributors have committed to evolving radio access networks around the world. Future RANs will be built on a foundation of ...
Feb 27, 2018 - AT&T, China Mobile, Deutsche Telekom, NTT DOCOMO, and Orange today jointly announced the creation of the ORAN Alliance. ORAN will ...                                                    
An Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN) is a concept based on interoperability and standardization of RAN elements including a unified interconnection standard ...
                                                                

 

Edited by specinho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, 0R0 said:

The US idea of 5G is very short wave in order to get very high signal density. The Chinese 5G is 3.5 GHz and is fast relative to 4G and marginally faster than 4G LTE. The holdup with the US (and EU) technology is that microwaves do not penetrate surfaces.So there need to be a swarm of antennae and in each car and building a "retransmitter" into a wi fi  signal.

Chinese 5G is just like Sprint's 4G LTE network relabeled 5G at 1 GHz. It is just 3 times faster. It is also not the kind of network anyone really needs. It does not allow the industrial internet data volume and density requirements.

Thank you for the sharing. I am not familiar but this piece of info might be something you could have overlooked:  High-band 5G uses frequencies of 25 - 39 GHz, near the bottom of the millimeter wave band, to achieve download speeds of 1 - 3 gigabits per second (Gbit/s).......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, 0R0 said:

It is driven in large part by strategic policy where the control of key industries internationally is the core driver of business, rather than the production being more valuable than the inputs to it, i.e. profits. Thus we have large amounts of Chinese products on the international market that are not priced to cover their costs. Meaning that non China consumers are being subsidized by both capital losses and labor cost suppression within China. .................... Often the result desired by the exporter isn't even to cover the costs but to transmit the capital out of the country into dollars and then assets held abroad, while not paying for the domestic costs in China, which were covered by borrowing against an asset (usually real estate) that could not be liquidated and the proceeds taken into dollars outside the country. The loan was never intended to be paid back and the production run was never meant to produce a profit, just minimize the loss upon its sale relative to the value of the domestic Chinese property.  You can think of it as a capital exit tax which is exacted as a loss on the manufacturing.

Thus consumers may be enjoying a free ride at the expense of Chinese wealth, banks, their depositors, and often employees and at the expense of their domestic producers who are put out of business, and then your strategic dependency on Chinese monopoly products ending your country's ability to practice foreign policy.

 

 

14 hours ago, 0R0 said:

That is not what I am saying.

China never did "trade" with anyone. .....................Their goal was to strategically remove industries from the West so that they are dependent on China and subject to its manipulation.

This perspective is rather new but very subjective.............. There might be another key concern i.e. exchange rate of dominant currencies vs Yuan. The prices could be low and yet highly profitable e.g. a toothbrush selling one Yuan (costs of production could be few cents) in China could be fetching 0.5 cents (3.5 Yuan) or lower in the US..........  They do not need to sell things at high prices to gain............. or no? In addition, as one of the major holders of US debts or national bonds, China Yuan is subjected to depreciation to reduce the amount involved. Foreign tradings and keeping foreign currencies in foreign land might appear very lucrative under conditions like these??........................................ Loan defaulters are most probably imbecile breeds of some immoral rich with messy lives whom might regard no sense of responsibility as their superior right, often arrogant, ruthless, indifferent, not capable of anything. Shall they are given a leveled platforms, they might not be able to compete even at basic tasks. Without the inheritance makes them the worst mankind whom might have messed up the world for their greed, ignorance and arrogance.................. Minority of those might cause troubles to the industry they are in but not so much to the economy of a country as a whole............

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.