New chinese MBT

[narwan]

PlasmaKrab said:
Remember the Thailand crash in 1997 and how some crazed NY traders ran down the Thai currency in some weeks, taking apart the whole Asian economy, like some later did to Argentina? Now THAT ended the Asian boom, for whoever would percieve that as a threat.

Oh, and quite every stock-based economy on the world right now is built on hot air. I won't extend on the dangers of stock-options, and how some more Enron-like affairs could turn it all to ashes precisely because of the US-Asian dependence.
Look how Boeing is trying to sue Airbus on EU-government loans? Where is the difference with China? The Chinese government is horribly corrupt, but the rising generation is bound to make it their own way at whichever cost.

The Asian bubble can plop anytime now, but itis too late for making profit whit it, since that would be at everyone's expense. So I guess everyone will go on filling it up with sheer faith, just like the dollar bubble or any other!

Saying that those traders caused the collapse of the asian economies is like saying that the assassination of archduke Ferdinand was the (sole) cause of the first world war. It was bound to happen and pretty soon too, it was unavoidable. Same thing with asian bubble in '97. Those traders didn't cause it, they flicked over a single domino stone and down came the whole house of cards. It was just as bound to happen.

Stock bound economies aren't necessairily build on hot air either, it's build on 'expectation'. Those expectations can be manipulated and it is that amount of manipulation that determines the amount of 'hot air' (Enron indeed). The chinese are doing just that on a scale larger probably than what caused the end of the japanese boom of the 80's (bank defaults and bad loans/investments mostly).

The chinese will slowly improve their lot, but don't forget that most of them are living in abject poverty, that the country lacks most of the needed (industrial and economic) infrastructure to improve the situation in China as a whole.
At best they can hope for gradual and substantial improvements in some regions, provided they can 'isolate' them from the rest to prevent their poverty from dragging down the succesful regions with them (as they say, China didn't take over Hongkong, Hongkong took over China! ).
But it's unlikely that the masses that will be left behind will take kindly to it. Which is the real problem of the chinese government; they can't improve the whole of the country at the same time, but how to manage localised growth and improvements without triggering revoltes (both by the masses and by the local fiefs running their regions like the warlords of the old days)?

Edit: wrote the reply before I saw yours Kevin; I think the chinese are trying to work around the bubble by joining with others economies (the US especially) as close as possible under the assumption that 1) it will be in the US' economic interest (short term at least) to keep China's bubble alive and 2) the view economic power as a relative; if you can take down the adversary with you you may even end up on top!

[PlasmaKrab]

Alright, economy is not my domain, but you won't persuade me that the current world economic mechanisms can be subject to any level of instability, precisely because no one can tell the level of 'hot air' in the overall 'expectation'. What I meant was that the whole stock trading, where the percepted success of a firm generally leads to a rise in its stock value, which rises its funds and over you go again. This phenomenon encourages equally performance and fraud. And fraud is much easier, particularly when you are persuaded you'll never be caught, and if ever you're caught you'll never be punished (which is what comes up from the general news reports on many of these fraud affairs). And when fraud is uncovered, the percepted value of the stock appears wholly virtual, and then... I think I don't have to explain that to anyone. Anyway I won't try short explanations anymore, I've just seen the result

And (in the same summary flaw of mine) when I talked about traders running down the Thai economy, I didn't envision some crazed traders plotting to take over the world; I think Narwan corrected it alright: the situation was potentially unstable and some guys took advantage of it to make profits, kicking the pebble on top of the mountain. They weren't the single cause of the fall but (as for WW1) there is no way to tell what would have happened if they hadn't.
You can call this behaviour normal or irresponsible, but you have to admit that currencies don't move around and change value by themselves: there have to be people, everyday people whose job is to see that money is made somehow. Don't come and talk about some Invisible Hand of the Market, there are just humans around.

OK, that was the less short explanation (not as long as it should have been maybe), let's hope I won't look like a know-it-all moron this time! Pardon me everyone, but I just wanted to start making things clearer here. I am glad to see that some of my betters have followed the path I have open...

By the way, I think this thread derivates somehow, don't you find? Now that we've all stated WHY the Chinese will NOT attack Taiwan, maybe we can get back to seeing to those who want to make fictional scenarios get info others that "no! you can't do that! can't happen!"

[SCAJolly]

Hehehe, it's rather fun to see threads such as this one take leaps where it does, over the fence and then back in.
I stumbled over this report from RAND, well actually the link was given to me by another. It might be interesting, sketching up the general perception of a conflict before the US might interrupt.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1217/
Here, one also discusses the issue of China not having the amphibious strength to launch an invasion. The idea is that after securing sea- and air superiority, a reverse Dunkerque (sp?) is launched! Quite interesting, all of this.
God, I hate these smileys...

[mosborne]

I think the comment "to what end" probably sums up the situation. It is ironic, since Chinese already conquered Taiwan, the losers took it when they lost the civil war in China. Now the winning side wants control of it. The operative word being "Control". I don't think it does the Chinese any good to ruin the Taiwan in its take over, no more than it would have made since for them to ruin Hong Kong in getting it back from the British. I would guess, that eventually, Tawain will go the way of Hong Kong. Just as it was mentioned that the US and China economies are intermixed, multiply that several times over when speaking of China and Taiwan. They are already one country but don't want to admit it yet. It would also eliminate a political hot spot for the US.

As for amphibious assault, I bet there have been many wars lost by assuming an opponent can't do something because they can't do the way they thought it should be done.

But I think I am contributing to getting this way off subject. I would be interested in knowing more about the new tank and its specs. Is there an official name for this tank now?