Yabby said;
Why do you assume that the West has to be poor for China to do well?

It is simple, the resources needed to make all Chinese moderately well
off are not available without denying those resources to the "west".

The Chinese realise that and it is why they are buying up land in
Australia and Africa, oil fields in Africa and Sth America, iron ore
prospects in Africa, Australia and Sth America.
A ban on export of rare earths, etc etc.

The earth just cannot supply enough food and resources for 7 billion
people at our standard of living. Either we become poorer or a few
billion stay on a low standard of living or they starve.

Thems the choices, no ifs, no buts, no argument we have passed the
point of arguing about it.

You choose.

Arjay, there are as many views on "understanding China" as there are commentators. But you are right, it is a fascinating story, one that will occupy us for the next fifty years at least, if not the rest of this century.

I recommend that you read Kissinger's "On China" sometime. Although it is just one man's interpretation of history, at least he was there. And this excerpt from the Guardian's review will probably get your conspiracy-nerves a-tingling...

"...why and how did President Richard Nixon decide that it was in America's interests to protect communist China? Kissinger tells us that this de facto alliance was personally decided by Nixon in August 1969 just as the Soviet Union was preparing to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on China. Nixon had decided the Soviets were the more dangerous party and that it was against American interests for China to be "smashed" in a Chinese-Soviet war"

But more recently, the Kiss is earning his crust with articles like this:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137245/henry-a-kissinger/the-future-of-us-chinese-relations

"On January 19, 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao issued a joint statement at the end of Hu’s visit to Washington. It proclaimed their shared commitment to a 'positive, cooperative, and comprehensive U.S.-China relationship.' Each party reassured the other regarding his principal concern, announcing, 'The United States reiterated that it welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater role in world affairs. China welcomes the United States as an Asia-Pacific nation that contributes to peace, stability and prosperity in the region.' Since then, the two governments have set about implementing the stated objectives."

Later in the article he - tantalizingly - points out that:

"Significant groups in both countries claim that a contest for supremacy between China and the United States is inevitable and perhaps already under way."

Those are the ones you like to hear about, aren't they?

And I know I've mentioned this before, Arjay, but it's probably worth another go: don't try your hand at economics, or anything to do with international finance. You'll only end up with egg on your face.

>>China can simply increase local wages and create it's own economy.Of the 1300 million there only 400 million sharing in the bonanza.They in all reality don't need the West if they are smart.China's domestic market can take up the slack.<<

There's so much wrong with those four sentences, it's difficult to know where to start. But as a kick-off, how about you consider first the impact on China's trade of a shut-down of exports. Then think how any "increase in local wages" could come about without causing inflation. On the way, try to work out how China would fund the replacement of all its imports.

Once you have done that... no, forget it, it's bound to be a waste of time. You haven't listened in the past, why should you start now?.

bazz/re-quote...{the West has to be poor for China to do well?}

""the resources..needed/without denying..those resources to the "west".""

that isnt so
[we are..in a mining boom
all booms bust...

yes its going to china
but its extra....[on a fast depleting/resource..any capitalist would stock_pile..its needs for the next twenty/years

and this..china has done!

lol..in ever falling yanki/dollars
[yet china..still wants to retain parity..with us$]

if they let..their yaun rise
the chinese would get it..ALL..at a bargin rate
pennies in the dollar..[thats default rate]..

[who's at fault?]
those holding hard assets
for proffiteering!

that lot of corperates
that have near trippled its cost
knowing we need to buy it...to consume it

to work hard for less..just
to keep building it..ever cheaper
with ever lowers wage slaves..not consuming[barely surviving]

using less/resource
each new generation..for..a better product

""The earth..cannot supply enough food/resources
for 7 billion..at our/standard of living""

that is bull
mate verticle_gardening alone
can double .the crop..then you got
like cuba's urban gardens..[that will become huge..anywhere there is a little sun...soil or room..to run hydro]

mate..imagine high_rise farming
the next evolution..of verticle farming

why the buildings ..llready got lights/water transport
direct into cbd...[just run some trickle irragation]

fish in the basement
worms..fowl.....[i know guys making
50,000 on half an acre..just selling dried herbs

""Either we become poorer or a few
billion stay on a low..standard of living..or they starve.""

lets decapitalise
im ok with halving my standard of consumption

in fact will take
the 5 year pledge..not to update anything not totally needed

heck i just need..a packet of china vitamin noodles
and a packet of jelly crystals..two dimsims

and half a pack of bread and toppings..per day
plus my coffee...smokes...lighters papers...web acces electicity

buy there is plenty of ways..to reduce
consume locally..heck give me a couple of chooks 2 eggs perday

a pregnant sow
bacon for life

""Thems the choices, no ifs, no buts,
no argument..we have passed the
point..of arguing about it.

You choose.""

NO WORRIES
i WILL GROW MY OWN

make do
do just fine

i agree china has plenty going for it
in the way of control over the instruments of govt/finance/law

the big advantage with china is many can simply return home
living relitivly rent free..with cash for some civilisation and comunication

if the factories close
many would simply go home to the farm

its all them compulsory things
that destroy wealth..compulsory 3 rd party insurance
is a huge cash cow..health insurance..etc

heck..they need to save
cause it all costs so much
but once you get home
you only need shelter food company
easilly done by paying them to restore their home
preserve culture document lifestyles...revere the old for their wisdom

next china will pick up bigger
on educating/caring for its people
[their main resource]

in the end govt can do anything a capitalist can
cheaper and better....as long as we got qualified skilled workers

*It is simple, the resources needed to make all Chinese moderately well
off are not available without denying those resources to the "west".*

So what resources are you concerned about, Bazz? Most resources
can in fact be recycled. Steel, copper, nickel, aluminium and all
the rest. Gas prices in the US are at a 10 year low, due to all
that shale gas and the Chinese have figured out that if they use
US technology, they can access 27 trillion cubic metres of their
own shale gas, enough for around 200 years.

Meantime electric cars are ready to go, for anyone wanting to buy
one, solar cells are dropping in price like a stone.

I know, the old oil is your concern. Well if oil is expensive,
somebody is making money. There are good reasons why lamb is at
an all time high for instance. The Arabs have money and will spend
it, people like me benefit.

In fact if Bazz wants to improve his lifestyele, he can buy an
Ipad which uses a few grammes of resources, download hundreds of
books and hundreds of music albums, take photographs to his hearts
content and use hardly any resources in the process. Resource
efficiency is a game changer.