1 minute ago, placeholder said:

It's idiomatic casual English. Perfectly OK in a venue like this.

👍

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

No. I just understand that 100% -15% equals 85%.

 

No, you just think that 15 is a small number compared to 85, when really we're talking about US$524.9 billion.  That's more than most county's GDP.

4 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Have you heard of something called “AI”? It stands for Artificial Intelligence and not A 1 as the highly intelligent (?) American Education Secretary seems to think. Try it sometime. You might learn something.

 

This response has nothing to do with the comment you are replying to.  You're not making any sense.

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

And?  You haven't made a point.

Only if you believe that 15% of exports which translates to 3% of GDP is crucial to China. It will continue to diversify away from the US as other nations grow economically.

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

This response has nothing to do with the comment you are replying to.  You're not making any sense.

You’ve shown yourself to be rather financially illiterate. Maybe AI aka Artificial Intelligence might be able to help you get a better grasp of financials and economics. Watching Jesse Watters is not going to do that. It will merely dumb you down even further, if at all possible.

5 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

No, you just think that 15 is a small number compared to 85, when really we're talking about US$524.9 billion.  That's more than most county's GDP.

Ah, the really big scary number tactic. You want a really big scary number? How about how much China exports elsewhere: 2.97 trillion dollars.

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Only if you believe that 15% of exports which translates to 3% of GDP is crucial to China. It will continue to diversify away from the US as other nations grow economically.

Not only is it 3% of China’s GDP, China’s GDP is lower thanks to its low cost of public healthcare and transportation, inter alia. 

2 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

You’ve shown yourself to be rather financially illiterate. Maybe AI aka Artificial Intelligence might be able to help you get a better grasp of financials and economics. Watching Jesse Watters is not going to do that. It will merely dumb you down even further, if at all possible.

 

So, when asked to explain your point your response was recommend that I should "ask AI"?

 

No.  That's not how this works.  If you cannot explain your point or back it up with evidence, then your claim fails.  That's how you have a discussion.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Ah, the really big scary number tactic. You want a really big scary number? How about how much China exports elsewhere: 2.97 trillion dollars.

 

If you think that China can just find US$524.9 billion somewhere else, then you're welcome to think that.  Others might disagree with you, though.

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

If you think that China can just find US$524.9 billion somewhere else, then you're welcome to think that.  Others might disagree with you, though.

Trying the scary number tactic again? If you think 524.9 billion is anything more than 15% of China's exports or 3% of its GDP, anyone who can do basic math will disagree with you.

43 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

How would it do that and where would the money come from?  China has a lot less money since the trade war began.

Your question.

 

 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Ah, the really big scary number tactic. You want a really big scary number? How about how much China exports elsewhere: 2.97 trillion dollars.

Answer.

 

Verstehen? Alles klar? Kao jai mai? Faham tak? Got it now? 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Trying the scary number tactic again?

 

Trying that soft fluffy percentage tactic again?

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If you think 524.9 billion is anything more than 15% of China's exports or 3% of its GDP, anyone who can do basic math will disagree with you.

 

Nonsense strawman.  

 

As I said, you can think what you want, but many will disagree that US$524.9 billion is going to be easy to pick up elsewhere.

 

Most countries don't produce more than US$524.9 billion in a year.  That isn't going to be easy to replace.

3 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Your question.

 

That you cannot answer?  How is that helping you?  You aren't making much sense.

Just now, BangkokReady said:

 

Trying that soft fluffy percentage tactic again?

 

 

Nonsense strawman.  

 

As I said, you can think what you want, but many will disagree that US$524.9 billion is going to be easy to pick up elsewhere.

 

Most countries don't produce more than US$524.9 billion in a year.  That isn't going to be easy to replace.

Even if it's not easy, so what. It's only 3% of Chinese GDP. China has the world's 2nd largest economy in nominal terms and the largest in terms of PP. Even if the loss is total, will a 3% decline in GDP bring a country down?

4 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

That you cannot answer?  How is that helping you?  You aren't making much sense.

As I suspected, you have been too dumbed down to understand basic maths.

This is the way to win a trade war against the bully and a man possessing spectacular levels of ignorance. And a terrible poker player to boot.

 

China is holding all the cards in this game and Trump does not get the fact that he's playing with fire. China could truly cripple the US on so many different levels. And they just might. 

1 hour ago, Gweiloman said:

I’m referring specifically to the rare earth minerals and products.

 

Having said that, it won’t be difficult for China to expand domestic consumption if it really wants to.

And elsewhere

Now, EU and Chinese officials are holding talks over existing trade barriers and considering a full-fledged summit in China in July.

https://theconversation.com/in-trade-war-with-the-us-china-holds-a-lot-more-cards-than-trump-may-think-in-fact-it-might-have-a-winning-hand-254173

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Even if it's not easy, so what. It's only 3% of Chinese GDP. China has the world's 2nd largest economy in nominal terms and the largest in terms of PP. Even if the loss is total, will a 3% decline in GDP bring a country down?

 

Ah, using the fluffy non-scary percentage tactic again.

 

What you have to ask yourself, is what would happen to most countries if you wiped out their entire GDP.  Would they be OK?  No.  So if China lost US$524.9 billion, would they be OK, just because you feel that 3 is a small number?  No.  There is your answer.

10 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

As I suspected, you have been too dumbed down to understand basic maths.

 

If you cannot explain your answers, or provide basic evidence to back up your points, people are going to assume that you have no idea what you are talking about and your comments will mean nothing.  You lose.

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

If you cannot explain your answers, or provide basic evidence to back up your points, people are going to assume that you have no idea what you are talking about and your comments will mean nothing.  You lose.

Plenty of evidence had been offered to you but you still can’t see it. Even a Chinese peasant can tell you that 3% of a certain number is not particularly significant but you still can’t comprehend.

1 minute ago, Gweiloman said:

Plenty of evidence had been offered to you but you still can’t see it. Even a Chinese peasant can tell you that 3% of a certain number is not particularly significant but you still can’t comprehend.

 

You haven't explain anything.  All you have done is insult the people who questioned your claims.  No one will take you seriously and you just come across as an uninformed troll.

 

You lose.

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

You haven't explain anything.  All you have done is insult the people who questioned your claims.  No one will take you seriously and you just come across as an uninformed troll.

 

You lose.

You win. Just like America will. 

29 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Trying that soft fluffy percentage tactic again?

 

 

Nonsense strawman.  

 

As I said, you can think what you want, but many will disagree that US$524.9 billion is going to be easy to pick up elsewhere.

 

Most countries don't produce more than US$524.9 billion in a year.  That isn't going to be easy to replace.

I've never said it will be easy to replace in the short term. What i've side is that it's not crucial to China's economy. A loss of 3% of GDP is not crucial.

7 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

You win. Just like America will. 

 

 

China = 5,000 years of History and Culture

 

USA = 500 years at a push of European, History and Culture

 

Looking at the posts on here, the golden age of comedy.

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

A loss of 3% of GDP is not crucial.

 

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

14 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I've never said it will be easy to replace in the short term. What i've side is that it's not crucial to China's economy. A loss of 3% of GDP is not crucial.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he thinks that it’s 3% GDP i.o. 3% of GDP.

2 hours ago, carlyai said:

The West just got lazy; like the Greeks, like the Romans.

It is/has been too easy for big companies to make huge profits by letting China do most of the Engineering work.

Probably if you also look at the education system you may find more in the West graduate with these fluffy Buisness Degrees than graduate with Engineering Degrees.

In the West, how many people work from home?

You can't be working on a production line or in a factory making things if you're working from home.

We are just lazy.

Probably if you also look at the education system you may find more in the West graduate with these fluffy Buisness Degrees than graduate with Engineering Degrees.

 

I'd say it's media degrees rather than business degrees. Every callow youth wants to be a star and get rich quick.

 

Yes, we are lazy, just like the Romans and we are going to go the same way. We already invited those in that will take over.

 

Does the west deserve the fate that awaits it- YES it does. Serves it right for exporting all the  jobs and tech to the enemy.

 

Sayonara, it's been real. Thanks for all the fish.

Just now, Gweiloman said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if he thinks that it’s 3% GDP i.o. 3% of GDP.

 

 This from someone who has been unable to explain anything they have written...  🙄

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Is a loss of 3% of your income crucial? Maybe, if you’re earning the minimum wage…

Just now, BangkokReady said:

 

 This from someone who has been unable to explain anything they have written...  🙄

Seems like you’re unable to understand anything at all…