So the west is winning, is it? Only if you’re a delusional Trump toady, Mr Pompeo, by Simon Tisdall

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, Marcin2 said:

Exactly. But China has no motivation to start any war, it will be just an economic hegemon, will dominate, mercilessly dominate the world in economic and technological terms. These will not be easy times for non-Chinese.

US GDP is 21 trillion USD nominal, 65,000 USD / per capita.

China GDP is 14 trillion USD nominal, 10,000 USD / per capita.

Prices in China are 2 or 3 times lower than in US.

China was always trying to hide the real GDP in PPP terms. They have not managed during the last 2012 IMF review.

So Chinese GDP is already 20,000-25,000 USD/per capita in PPP terms.

China has motivation to keep RMB devalued, it needs to increase productivity first, and it does this consequently.

While China will be developing,the level of domestic Chinese prices will slowly reach US/developed world level.

At 30,000-40,000 USD / per capita GDP China will dwarf US economy around 2035-2040.

China's numbers are fabricated and exaggerate GDP.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2189052/china-exaggerated-gdp-data-2-percentage-points-least-nine

Current GDP is likely $11-12 Trillion.

The actual numbers for 2018 of 1.7% and 2019, of 0% from Prof. Xiang indicate the forward thrust of China's development. Low end incomes will improve while top end incomes stagnate and business incomes evaporate. The higher numbers you are projecting will not happen in our lifetimes.  

Average paychecks do not reflect the actual position of China's GDP nor labor. The Coastal metro average pay is far higher. Despite a 100 fold rise in Coastal wages and 20 fold increase in rural and migrant incomes, Chinese are still hard pressed to buy their own products because they are either too expensive for them or of insufficient quality for the higher income buyers. PPP is a broken model for China as consumption is strongly bifurcated between the low end and top end. The top end of labor is already paid top dollar at the senior level, >80% of its Western equivalent's paychecks, at the entry level it is >50%. There is not much room for improvement at the top. 

The bottom end will continue to grow slowly. But they have a California and Seattle problem facing them. The China coastal metros are where the good jobs are, but prices of real estate are 10X higher relative to incomes than even the worst of the US. Thus the rural migrant labor is 8 to a room while working in the industrial metros, while they buy lower cost properties at their rural homes, where grandparents and kids live- if they manage. 

A pointed departure of Debt/GDP took place in China after 2010. Where GDP growth continued with multiple very large credit driven stimulus impulses of private and government spending, which produced no residual benefit or Keynesian multiplier effect beyond counting the actual spending itself. That is because Total Factor Productivity took a dive and has gotten progressively worse.

https://gnseconomics.com/en_US/2019/08/08/where-from-here/

. 

That is using official GDP numbers. 

If you take U. of Chicago estimates then the number for TFP for the last few years is -4% to -5%. 

Those are depression level numbers similar to the US after 1929. 

As pointed out before, the Chinese numbers are target numbers that the provincial governments pretend to reach. They will blast enough iron, burn as much coal, stand as much steel and pour as much concrete as is necessary to reach that goal and keep their people employed at something. Note that provincial revenues have gone from 10% from land sales to 60-70% from land sales after the recent tax cuts. They have long ago run out of  fiscal space and fill it with SIVs and SOE straw man companies preying on investor's naive expectation that the central government backs those up.

This is no different than the Mao era steel targets of the "Great Leap Forward". While the private market can set values, the SOE sector has no clue and just produces to preset targets "by hook or by crook". There is no regard for profitability or return on investment, whether direct business returns or indirect economic returns of public works. Whatever deficits are formed are financed by the banking sector or via debt issues to SOE bank operated Asset funds. 

China has transitioned from hiding its growth to hiding its slowdown. As their needs have shifted from preventing US retaliation to raising foreign funds and capturing trade deals on favorable terms. Both of which require Chinese numbers to be as big as they can possibly present them. 

 . 

[BLA + 1,666]

21 hours ago, 0R0 said:

You are posing the question of whether EU should sign up to one sided spying and control of their individual's telecoms and "self driving" payments accounts, and electric switching by China, putting them at the mercy of its prickly Propaganda machine and mercenary interests. Or stick to waiting for their own companies and the US to provide the same "service" with a degree of reciprocity at a higher cost. I think the answer is easy. 

Call it Eurosclerosis, but the administrative class of the EC that took over control of the individual EU state governments, can not make political decisions, and the politicians are incapable of making decisions any longer without directives from their EC centric bureaucrats. It is not strategic reasoning or geopolitical considerations. It is a cheap trading issue where European governments are willing to trade control of technology that runs the future to China's CCP for the benefit of cheap components, financing, and quick buildout. I would say they are selling their future to China really cheaply.

 

I believe your statement that EU is selling out to China for cheaper systems is not entirely true. It's more of an excuse.

Germany is terrified of what China would do if they dont buy Huawei systems. Germany sells more vehicles in China than anywhere else.  China recently changed the law that required 51% Chinese ownership of car mfgers in China.  China is allowing Germany to  buy back the Chinese ownership. 

It is a known fact that China is putting intense pressure on Germany and other EU countries to buy Huawei 5G. 

EU is stalling a final decision until after U.S. election for obvious reasons. 

Initially, those manufacturers that started to move out of China used China for cheap labor and corporate tax avoidance.  Those that had market share in China are forced to mfg there. Example Apple.

Looks like due to virus even those that need to stay in China to sell to China are looking to diversify plant locations. 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by BLA

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

12 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Try to diversify your sources. When interested in this or that topic I read a spectrum of media: US, British, German, industry & business platforms if I need specific insight like in offshoring or chip industry, even Chinese, Russian or Middle Eastern at times. 
The message is on many levels: raw information, attached commentary, way of presentation, bias related to omission of certain aspects of the topic. A lot of you can also derive from the language, usage of specific words or phrases.

Isn’t the Guardian the British equivalent of the National Enquirer in the US?

I remember decades ago the front page of the National Enquirer stating that a B-17 WW2 bomber had been found on the moon...complete with photo!

[0R0 + 6,251]

2 hours ago, BLA said:

I believe your statement that EU is selling out to China for cheaper systems in not entirely true. It's more of an excuse.

Germany is terrified of what China would do if they dont buy Huawei systems. Germany sells more vehicles in China than anywhere else.  China recently changed the law that required 51% Chinese ownership of car mfgers in China.  China is allowing Germany to  buy back the Chinese ownership. 

It is a known fact that China is putting intense pressure on Germany and other EU countries to buy Huawei 5G. 

EU is stalling a final decision until after U.S. election for obvious reasons. 

Germany should realize that they lost the China market to their own slow adoption of EVs. China does not believe it can import oil to power its transit because of their current account trajectory. So they are pressing whatever they can to get EVs on the road and cut future oil consumption down. 

China car sales, as per the first car buying demographic will fall by 40% over the decade since its 2017  peak. Its transport needs will fall proportionately even without a financial crisis putting a halt on it for several years. China markets are just not worth the hassle. 

China is allowing the buybacks because it needs the forex. German co;s should try taking money out of China instead and see how much SAFE lets them take out and how many months of glitches and unanswered calls they need to make before it happens. China is a roach motel for capital.

The intense pressure by China indicates that Huawei equipment sales are strategically important. Meaning that they are installing spyware that China believes is important for its ability to control EU communications in a time of crisis. An existential need.  

I would say Germany has no chance of survival if they take the Huawei equipment after taking the Russian gas. They are running out of possible carrots to trade with the US, along with Sweden and Finland. The US is looking for a transactional relationship with allies who pay their way and have an mercantile benefit for the US. Precisely the opposite of what Merkel has been expecting. She and her Eurocronies are still thinking in cold war terms, that the US actually wants them for their geopolitical value. It doesn't. The US wants them to join in containing China's communists and for their mercantile value. Without a highly favorable deal for the US, France has a good target market, but Germany doesn't. Its only value is its great engineering and production process experts. The US will gladly take the entire layer of these folks off of Germany and take them to their new home as German exports implode due to China shrinkage and US tariffs and financial and economic crisis in Europe. . 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

6 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

So stop lawless invasion and occupation of Syrian and Iraqi territory, could you ?

US behaviour is LAWLESS in the face of international law, in the face of

the RULES BASED ORDER, the slogan

US like to mention only when it suits its interests.

The realpolitik is no good guys or bad guys (actually US are now bad guys in this system) game, it is about interests, here hydrocarbons interests. @0R0

International law is what the US invented after WWi and then again after WWII. The gummy bear institutions that it established for an orderly conduct of trade and providing a process for aggrieved countries to present their plight, have no teeth without the US. There were ample reasons including chemical weapons and the Iran/Saudi proxy wars in Iraq and Syria. The US made the mistake of trusting the Saudis knowing what they were doing in supporting their fractious clients in Syria and falling for the idea that a democratic Iraq with a majority Shia East can be anything other than an Iranian puppet. No international law applies under these circumstances. They have no borders to respect.  

The US is in the Middle East to keep the Chinese and Russians from controlling the oil. That is Europe's job for its own interests. Yet all EU nations do is throw nits at the US and promote Russian and Chinese propaganda which you seem to be heavily steeped in.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

7 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

I would like to refer to US protection of sea lanes MYTH. You are too clever @0R0 to write such things.

Unless US will sponsor "pirates" with US modern maritime warfare or US will become submarine pirates themselves (this again means WW3) China has more than enough navy strength to protect the global sea lanes.

Actually China already has more than US relatively small major surface combatants (corvettes and frigates) suitable for fight with "pirates" and protect sea lanes.

If needed China would just build another 10 or 30 or 50 corvettes or another 10 or 30 frigates to patrol global sea lanes.

China does not, at present, have anything resembling a blue water navy. Those littoral frigates have an effective range of about 500 nautical miles. Now if only China could convince the pirates to only operate within that radius. Meanwhile going to sea for weeks and months as the US routinely does? Not. A. Chance. 

As to your insult to 0r0, apologize. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

6 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

25 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

You are right, China cannot protect itself from US IMPERIAL PIRACY, ONLY.

So if US will engage in high seas "piracy" as you suggest, we would have problem, and again are back to WW3 conundrum.

 

Chinese are very clever and ambitious people.

 I do not want to sound racist, but you can call me Chinese or Jewish or American

anytime you want, (or need it for your binary world view), I would take it as an compliment, I admire each of these nations.

I think WW3 would be a MAJOR problem for all of us, US citizens included.

(I would not call you Chinese if you would admit the above). Poland is a really sh*tty place to be in case of WW3. First salvo with depressed trajectory ICBM from Russia could be devastating for the place I live in, Warsaw.

It will not be US piracy. Directly or indirectly. The US has no gain from it. All it needs to do is turn a blind eye. 

The piracy will be conducted at first surreptitiously via African coastal countries by European and perhaps Turkey, or other large trading countries. S. Korea and Japan will not go there since they have an arrangement with the US already. They will target by cargo and flag carrier so as to avoid countries that can retaliate. In the case of China being in crisis (what I expect but you either don't believe or try to ignore) they are far more likely to take to piracy via a recently acquired BRI partner where they installed a client government. Particularly if their properties of key rare minerals are re-nationalized. 

WW3 is not in the cards. No particular nation faces an existential threat to make it happen.

European and Chinese disintegration are possible outcomes. Poland being part Russian and part German again is not unlikely. Europe and the US in a trade and military alliance with India ASEAN Japan and Korea but excluding China is the most likely outcome. Many transitional combinations are possible. Shooting wars at the periphery are likely. A war between China and a coalition of S China sea nations is likely once China demonstrates  how worthless a partner it is after its financial crisis. The coronavirus crisis may have already been enough for commerce and finance to step away. Multinationals are not making deals in China, and are planning on duplicating China sole source industrial capacity for parts and materials. Price will not matter. China sourcing is no longer considered a reasonable risk. Business interruption insurance is already unavailable for new China sourcing and will unlikely be renewed at anywhere near the same low rates that have been in place these past two decades.  

[0R0 + 6,251]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Isn’t the Guardian the British equivalent of the National Enquirer in the US?

I remember decades ago the front page of the National Enquirer stating that a B-17 WW2 bomber had been found on the moon...complete with photo!

Left wing rag. But carries serious journalism. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

13 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

I would like to refer to US protection of sea lanes MYTH. You are too clever @0R0 to write such things.

 

6 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

As to your insult to 0r0, apologize. 

 

Calm down there Ward, Marcin didn't insult 0R0.  At least in my opinion as moderator.

So far, this is a lively, informative thread, with some excellent back and forth of well thought out opposing musings. 

Please, let's debate the issues, and not the forum personalities.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 2/22/2020 at 6:45 PM, Marcin2 said:

Imperious, bullying American behaviour, political arm-twisting and shameless economic blackmail over a post-Brexit trade deal pose big problems for Britain in a time of deep uncertainty. But other US partners are in the same boat.

Nope.  India seems pretty happy with the U.S.  India PM Modi and U.S. President Trump, at Namaste Rally in India.

 

 

 

Once again, the bile spewed by Western Mainstream Media against Trump (and the U.S.) is incorrect.

What the MSM refuses to show you (125,000 Indians cheering Trump + Modi)

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 2/22/2020 at 6:45 PM, Marcin2 said:

Intolerant rightwing populists and ultra-nationalist mini-Trumps are on the march.

Think you got that backwards.  This guy below is running for Congress. 

Scary, the far left's seething hatred for Trump, for Democracy, and for the rule of law in the constitutional republic of the USA.

 

[GunnysGhost + 157]

10 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Think you got that backwards.  This guy below is running for Congress. 

Scary, the far left's seething hatred for Trump, for Democracy, and for the rule of law in the constitutional republic of the USA.

 

"Free Speech" should not apply to policymakers.

Let me finish...

 

If a Congressperson says "I'll just nuke US citizens when I'm president..."  I believe this person has the authority and power level to make that a THREAT!!!    Illegal.  Impeached and jail time. 

Same goes here. 

Also, regardless of what happens in the VA 'state house', the 2A is constitutional, and infringing upon it is not.  I believe correct interpretation of the law is that passing junctions against the constitution is an illegal act and therefore the VA House and the Governor are now criminals even for proposing / threatening "using the National Guard" to shoot people for obeying a Federal (guaranteed by Constitution) statute.

[Bob D + 562]

On 2/22/2020 at 9:55 PM, Ward Smith said:

The Guardian? Lol lol lol lol lol 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

They write for guys like Marcin.  No offense to Marcin as I think he's a smart, stand up guy.  Would love to have a beer and a chat.  But I would never want my life and livelihood to be determined by anything lesser than what is afforded to me in the USA.

[Bob D + 562]

As I read further, I see that Marcin has gone bananas.  

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Isn’t the Guardian the British equivalent of the National Enquirer in the US?

I remember decades ago the front page of the National Enquirer stating that a B-17 WW2 bomber had been found on the moon...complete with photo!

The Guardian is far better than the Sunday Sport 

i believe it was the Sunday Sport that had the headline you refer to.

See below another classic

It would appear that if the story was true (clearly ludicrous) the Sunday Sport would have proved life on other planets exists, as the monkey has rotted to a skeleton and would need bacteria to do so.

Only in the UK!

Edited February 24, 2020 by Rob Plant

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 hour ago, Bob D said:

As I read further, I see that Marcin has gone bananas.  

I think Marcin is having fun with you guys, trying to get a reaction out of you.

Most of what he is writing must be tongue in cheek

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 2/22/2020 at 6:45 PM, Marcin2 said:

I think this article from Guardian reflects my sentiment about recent counter-productive US foreign policy moves, more appriopriate term would be blunders. Sentiment shared by a lot of Europeans and European governments.

India does not share your sentiment, although CNN may.

 

 

Meanwhile, sour grapes TDS:

 

[Bob D + 562]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

I think Marcin is having fun with you guys, trying to get a reaction out of you.

Most of what he is writing must be tongue in cheek

So your premise is that Marcin spends his time intentionally posting comments in direct contradiction of his beliefs solely to get a reaction out of us??  Really??  Nope!   I believe Marcin absolutely believes in the NWO, globalization, a USA that is subservient and compliant to the UN or The Hague.  Marcin does not see the inequity to the USA in the Clinton, Bush, Obama trade deals, arms deals, US military as policeman.  The change to a Nationalist Trump administration is a shock to Marcin's world view systems.  What Marcin does not understand is the media/Democrat party is one and the same in the USA.  For the past decade, the US (fake news) news outlets supported the globalist policies so that's all you read from the USA.  It's a new ball game folks.  The USA will no longer be the stooge for the world.  You want the good that comes with the USA military power, economic might and drive for democracy/freedom .... it comes with very simple strings attached .... PLAY FAIR. It's so simple .... pay your bills, trade fairly and don't support tyrannical, terrorist, dictatorial regimes.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 minutes ago, Bob D said:

So your premise is that Marcin spends his time intentionally posting comments in direct contradiction of his beliefs solely to get a reaction out of us??  Really??  Nope!   I believe Marcin absolutely believes in the NWO, globalization, a USA that is subservient and compliant to the UN or The Hague.  Marcin does not see the inequity to the USA in the Clinton, Bush, Obama trade deals, arms deals, US military as policeman.  The change to a Nationalist Trump administration is a shock to Marcin's world view systems.  What Marcin does not understand is the media/Democrat party is one and the same in the USA.  For the past decade, the US (fake news) news outlets supported the globalist policies so that's all you read from the USA.  It's a new ball game folks.  The USA will no longer be the stooge for the world.  You want the good that comes with the USA military power, economic might and drive for democracy/freedom .... it comes with very simple strings attached .... PLAY FAIR. It's so simple .... pay your bills, trade fairly and don't support tyrannical, terrorist, dictatorial regimes.

I just think he is playing Devils advocate, the title of the thread is inflammatory in itself and intended to poke a stick at Americans.

As Tom said from the get go "This should be a fun thread." knowing it would provoke lots of heartfelt, passionate reactions.

Regarding the rest of your post I think Marcin does believe in globalisation etc.but he can speak for himself on that.

On other countries "playing fair" I don't disagree.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

57 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I just think he is playing Devils advocate, the title of the thread is inflammatory in itself and intended to poke a stick at Americans.

As Tom said from the get go "This should be a fun thread." knowing it would provoke lots of heartfelt, passionate reactions.

Regarding the rest of your post I think Marcin does believe in globalisation etc.but he can speak for himself on that.

On other countries "playing fair" I don't disagree.

Marcin continuously circles back to the same theme, regardless of our attempts to dissuade him. His theme runs along the lines that evil imperialist USA can't stand the competition from (somehow) less evil, less imperialist China and that our only way to "win" is to preemptively attack them before they become so powerful that we somehow can't attack anymore. 

Everyone remaining that's active on this site is intelligent enough to play this out a few moves ahead and delve deeper into Marcin's machinations. Why keep pushing every conversation this direction? 

Just to play devil's advocate, let's pretend Marcin really is a Chinese agent, ergo making him a puppet of the CCP by definition. His (and others like him) comments intended to elicit the intended goal, heck yeah, big bad USA needs to kick those dirty commies in the teeth and do it fast, accomplishes what precisely? This is where the chess game comes into play. 

China is hurting badly right now and the CCP miscalculations are stacking up at a prodigious rate. They are the ones seeking hegemony that Marcin is accusing US of desiring. That the US doesn't need nor desires the kind of empire that China imagines is completely lost to him (and the CCP). The western mind plays chess, but the eastern mind plays Go. This is an Atari moment for China, they feel they are about to be captured with only one out remaining. What is that out? 

China needs to try a preemptive strike, possibly nuclear. What will their pretext be, with a whole planet condemning them? They'll have to claim they were expecting our preemptive attack, which is what Marcin (and others) have been pushing as a concept here and elsewhere. This site is more like the training ground for meme warfare. And I'm not talking about "joke" memes but the kind Charles Stross describes. If they can point to enough "democratic" discussions pointing that way, and can say, "democracy evil and this would eventually happen because these people will vote in like minded leaders", they'd have a thin veneer of plausibility. 

There's my two cents, some mental floss as it were. 

[Justin McCarthy + 7]

The assumption that the US would continue to hollow out its economy as the first and last buyer of global production, for the benefit of Wall Street and the London Financial District, and could sacrifice its middle class forever before a political backlash occurred was dubious thinking.

Or, continue to maintain a world order; an alliance structure; or energy security for Europe that is no longer needed to contain the USSR was also dubious. Especially, given that, many of our (US) erstwhile allies appear to want to game the system or be free riders. A recent PEW Research study indicated that few Europeans were prepared to defend "Europe". Since, that is the case, why should Americans?

Times change, challenges change, allies change and policies change as needed. Maybe Charles De Gaulle said it best, to paraphrase: "in time, 250 million Americans will tire of protecting 300 million Europeans from 160 million Russians." Took awhile and the numbers changed. But, here we are. Adapt to the new reality.

The US is still here, in the catbird's seat militarily, geopolitically, and geo-strategically; with the largest consumer market; the largest single integrated trade market on the planet and now energy independent. But, the US has new challenges and needs. We still have countries we like, and with which we potentially share certain values and interests. The only difference is that the terms of engagement need to change. Since "Europe" is incapable of leading; that leaves "follow or get out of the way."

[BLA + 1,666]

8 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 

What the MSM refuses to show you (125,000 )

 

 

Don't these people have to go to work ?

[RichieRich216 + 454]

Why do people feel the United States needs any County? We have everything within our borders to be self sufficient, We have been carrying the word Since World War 2, At this point all these Countries can go Screw Off... We consistently do more then we received! 

[BLA + 1,666]

29 minutes ago, Justin McCarthy said:

The assumption that the US would continue to hollow out its economy as the first and last buyer of global production, for the benefit of Wall Street and the London Financial District, and could sacrifice its middle class forever before a political backlash occurred was dubious thinking.

Or, continue to maintain a world order; an alliance structure; or energy security for Europe that is no longer needed to contain the USSR was also dubious. Especially, given that, many of our (US) erstwhile allies appear to want to game the system or be free riders. A recent PEW Research study indicated that few Europeans were prepared to defend "Europe". Since, that is the case, why should Americans?

Times change, challenges change, allies change and policies change as needed. Maybe Charles De Gaulle said it best, to paraphrase: "in time, 250 million Americans will tire of protecting 300 million Europeans from 160 million Russians." Took awhile and the numbers changed. But, here we are. Adapt to the new reality.

The US is still here, in the catbird's seat militarily, geopolitically, and geo-strategically; with the largest consumer market; the largest single integrated trade market on the planet and now energy independent. But, the US has new challenges and needs. We still have countries we like, and with which we potentially share certain values and interests. The only difference is that the terms of engagement need to change. Since "Europe" is incapable of leading; that leaves "follow or get out of the way."

We are at war now.  An economic war with China. It started some years back and will probably go on for 20 or 30 more years.

We're in an economic war against Iran nukes (personally don't support the Iran war) 

Europe needs to understand WW2 ended 75 years ago.  The Berlin Wall fell over 30 years ago.

Little proxy wars all the time.  However It's all about economic growth now.  Doubt real war breaks out unless nuts like North Korea or Oran get a nuke and launch it. 

U.S. has all the basics agriculture, energy strong e onomy and a small resurgence in mfg , hopefully grows more.

I believe the USMCA will become even stronger. 

EU (especially Germany know Trump/US hold all the cards.  It's up to the EU how this plays out.  

Time to end the old political mindset. Time to retire the 70 year old generals.  

U.S. can be a country's best friend.  Just no more exploitation of U.S. good nature. 

I think U.S. /EU will work things out.  They always do.

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Marcin continuously circles back to the same theme, regardless of our attempts to dissuade him. His theme runs along the lines that evil imperialist USA can't stand the competition from (somehow) less evil, less imperialist China and that our only way to "win" is to preemptively attack them before they become so powerful that we somehow can't attack anymore. 

Marcin alternates between preferring a US as Hegemon vs. China as Hegemon, and throwing tirades against the US for being an Empire and conducting "illegal" wars in the ME. 

The "illegal" part is due to his misreading of the stated rules and their application while ignoring that the legal determination is in the hands of the US as a holder of a veto. 

Yes, he goes on tirades against the US from the point of view that the US is an empire the way the French and English empires were. That there is an economic benefit and some public support or desire to see the US as a world hegemon, which there isn't since the GI generation, their view of a world order is not shared by any preceding or following generation. While the US can arguably be called an empire, it never was what Marcin thinks it is. Opportunistic actions the US took for its own benefit and that of its ever reluctant allies are not the kinds of actions the English and French took, of militarily taking apart countries and dividing them up among themselves and subjugating the population and economy to their own economic needs and imposing their culture and political structures on the them. The US did try to rework Iraq and later Syria into non-murderous non-dictatorships. They opened up the Iraq oil market to all bidders to run the oil production and directed the revenue share from the leases to the Iraqi government, not to itself (which is what the French and English did, taking home the bonanza). 

European and other countries were not happy with the idea that genocidal dictatorships were automatically fair game to be "regime changed". That was since so many EU trade partners were precisely that and EU companies had preferential deals with them since US companies were restricted by the foreign corrupt practices law that essentially forbade them from doing business in these corrupt dictatorships. And these countries were populating a swing vote block in the UN, for whatever that was worth in PR and the deranged notion that the UN has a moral purpose.  But the US was not really committed to that as a principle. It was used as a justification where stability in crucial supplies to the world was in question. The US really doesn't care for that any longer for its own benefit. There is only an interest in preventing Russian and Chinese control of the oil. An interest Europe and the rest of the world ex China and Russia, shares with the US. The US does not want to be there on its own. It wants to participate and  lead but not carry the entire burden, and only if it obtains some mercantile benefit from the world ex Russia and China, i.e. Allies.    

What he is hooked on is a straight lining projection of China's credit bubble driven economic expansion that derailed from economic benefit 10 years ago. Many serious analysts are doing the same without regard to historical precedent that the best case scenario following this kind of expansion is a permanent flattening out of the economy with marginal growth, while the usual scenario is a financial crash followed by economic crisis that is either resolved with heavy handed monetary response, or resolved by letting the crash destroy the ownership structure of assets while spewing unemployed people. Since assets are in the hands of the state, there is no way they will allow a transfer of ownership to the public if they can avoid it. So the only likely response is an aggressive monetary one. Which would resolve the tension of the low PPP index by massive price inflation. Due mismanagement of food safety, and resistance to agricultural and land reform, China's food productivity has been flat for nearly a decade, and the bird flu green rot and swine fever are cutting supplies drastically and food prices are rising fast. 

What happens to the currency is dependent on how the current account and capital account behave and how much capital escapes China as unrepatriated exports and other leakages. I don't expect that a lower Yuan will provide much of an export boost as China's export markets are pretty much saturated. So I doubt that it will be a target for resolving the financial stress. Besides which, Xi's imperial dreams hinge on floating a strong Yuan for international contracting and clearing as a regional or global reserve currency. So devaluing would only be a last resort and only if the inflation has to be externalized as it increases local costs to exporters. 

The main issue that faces credit analysts (Michael Pettis, Charlene Cho, Vincent and Louis Gave) when looking at China's credit bubble is that China has no legal definitions of insolvency and iliquidity that are binding for the CCP so balance sheets are malleable. What isn't is cash flows. While incomes are rising and savings rates are high, incoming cash into the financial system from savers and volume of fresh cash from new borrowing is bigger than outgoing cash outs by retiree spending. Then they can continue juggling. It is when cash outs rise above inflows that they have a problem that can't be swept into the credit mountain. It becomes worse as that circumstance also restricts fresh borrowing demand, and volumes of economic activity fall in tandem. By a demographic calculation, that comes for sure within 5 years. However, since the marginal credit expansion is providing a falling return in incremental GDP (credit efficiency), from 70% 7-8 years ago to 25% in 2018 by official numbers, 10% by Prof. Xiang's 2018 estimate and 0% in 2019, then it seems that China is approaching the point where it has to intervene monetarily, and do so agressively though their savings demographic has not yet turned negative. The covid-19 situation exacerbates the underlying problems and is shutting down a large minority of the service economy for the long term. Saving jobs via aggressive corporate lending is going to limit economic damage via labor incomes, but will stoke inflation further due to shortages. 

China's attempts to restrict credit and lower leverage via a crackdown on shadow banking resulted in business failures, and thus bail ins of up to 70% in Baoshang and other bank failures have resulted in panic in the interbank market that persisted the entire second half of 2019. They lowered the haircuts to cap them at 90%. But that still means that the failed banks had a 30% capital loss in non performing loans and the government took on 2/3 of the loss onto its books. That is about in line with Charlene Cho's (former Fitch China credit analyst) estimate of 25% NPLs as a correlation to the marginal efficiency of credit  derived from the stated numbers out of China. Their formal NPL numbers are obviously rubbish.

 

.