Of course was the US program intended to work short-term. Otherwise why would you throw billions of dollars at deadbeats such as GM, Ford, Crysler, AIG, Citi, BoA? It was to avert immediate disaster. If those companies were not on the verge of bankruptcy then there would have been no point in injecting your childrens' future into them, correct?
The point about China that you are simply too stubborn to see (maybe because you were brainwashed after having read a single bearish China writeup) is that whatever happens to the U.S. China is not gonna go down. Obviously all of China's investments in the U.S. will be lost, and U.S. demand for China's products would disappear as well. So what? A lot lower growth rate, BUT, and that is what you seem to be brainwashed about, China is only shipping a part of its finished products to the US. THere are tons of other markets (and I showed facts earlier on that most of those other markets are by now more important to China than the U.S.) which will enable China to move ahead, albeit at reduced speed. So, again, what is your REAL argument against above points?
Something I dont understand is how on average a lot of Americans (more so than other nations) cannot get this naive pride out of their head that the world will stop functioning without a striving U.S. The argument of total supremacy was maybe justified until 20 years ago but the world has really changed. The U.S. has basically enacted a trade: It gave up its supremacy for more balanced responsibilities. Admittedly the rest of the world has not yet fully delivered on their fair share of added responsibilities.
Simple fact is China has a comparitive advantage in manufacturing goods and it will not lose that whethere there is a country called America or not. That was my whole point and nothing more, nothing less.
Can we not settle this whole naive discussion by admitting we are all a lot less important than we want to think?
Quote from ByLoSellHi:
The U.S. stimulus package was never designed to work for "precisely one quarter" (I'm paraphrasing your ridiculous insinuation).
You are quite disingenuous in your contentions and debating tactics.
The general point is that once a stimulus package trickles out, whether here, or in China, its going to have diminishing returns over a longer period of time.
In the case of China, which depends (with or without stimulus money to stimulate domestic consumption; just a matter of degree) on exports to carry its economy, unless additional stimulus monies are used to increase domestic consumption, the initial package is going to ultimately wane in its intended effects.
