<- Say hello to your new masters, America. And your new landlords, seeing as, for a while now, they.ve been lending you $2 Billion a day just to prop up your economy. They effectively OWN you now.

One thing I want to happen now, is for China to offer the US a bailout plan: an injection of $20 Trillion to save America. But there's a catch. Whoever is president takes orders from Hu Jintao. He says 'Jump!', the pres says 'How high?'.

If Hu says abortion is legal everywhere in the US (with Pro-Lifers being shot), the president can't say no. China hates religion, so if Hu says religion in America is illegal, on pain of death, the pres says 'I'm on it!'.

After all, your financial existence would depend on it.

>>8866

Ah, chink wet dreams. How cute.

>>8867
I'm in Britain, and even I can admit that the EU isn't going to come out of this in any way well.
I for one wouldn't mind living in a world where the true powers that be are avowedly secular. No more batshit insane Christian fundamentalist lobbyists. And it doesn't just stay in America, some idiocy spreads, why a few months ago in Britain we had a creationist "museum" open.

the yuan will roll over and die if anything happens to the us economy. the prc does so much crazy monetary tinkering to get an optimal trade situation that damn near anything would affect it.

>>8866
You cannot ensure that your debtors repay you without holding some sort of leverage. Telling your debtors "You guys owe us big time :p" is hardly what I would call "leverage."

Your response could be, "Well, in the case that America tries to default on its loans, China could just nuke them!"; but my response is, "Why would they risk self-annihilation in the name of nuking their #1 trading partner and #1 source of imported food?"

Translation: yes, America's economy is enslaved to Chinese loan-money, and yes, if the Chinese were in a position to sever ties with the USA and ask for their money back then we'd be fucked, but that's not reality. The reality is that America can and has perpetually neutered this potential threat by means of some of their own leverage against the Chinese, first and foremost among these being FOOD. And while sure China could attempt to conquer America by force and absorb the territories held today by the US government into the PRC, the same is true in reverse (i.e. that we could attempt to annihilate them in order to escape repayment of our loans). The fact that neither of us does any of these possibilities is proof enough that the "you better do what I say OR ELSE!" threat is the hollowest threat of modern socioeconomics. And why is that? Because nobody who seeks complete worldwide annihilation -- including his own demise -- has yet been able to make good on that desire. Even the most merciless and self-righteous of world leaders still value their own lives -- and they know that those lives would be ended within hours of initiating a nuclear attack on a world superpower.

** tl;dr the Chinese collar you speak of tied around America's neck is nothing more than a bunch of wadded-up IOUs. **

New Masters? A least our milk is safe.

>>8876

And you know what'd happen if USA refuses to repay China? It'd become like North Korea, and regarded as a financial pariah (DPRK owes the IMF $70 Billion). No financial institution would trust them, least of all China's HSBC (PRC's Citibank).

China's got you by the balls, America. But I guess your arrogance keeps blinding you otherwise. You can't sage reality.

>>8886
What the hell mentality do you think all of these private investors who are pulling out represent? America already lost its reputation as a safe investment ages ago, so like the man with nothing left to lose, America is in a prime position to throw in the towel and say "fuck this."

Not that it will, but you seem hellbent on convincing us that China has a one-sided relationship with the US when nothing could be further from the truth. If China has us by the balls, then we have them by theirs also. That's all I'm saying: it's an economic and political stalemate between two world powers who both owe one another and who both have the power to eliminate one another.

And for all your talk of "If America defaulted, then nobody would trust them ever again," what the fuck do you think would happen to China's reputation in the world community if they tried to force America into repayment and made good on the threat of military force if America defaulted? The day China clenches America's balls in its mighty red fist, so to speak, is the day that every other superpower bands together to find a way to prevent China from getting too powerful. It's the #1 reason why the Americans and Soviets, who didn't have any crucial economic codependency in the 1960s the way that America and China do today, who didn't have that blessing in disguise of a mutually-suffocating economic leash, abstained from attacking one another full-force. If the Soviets and Americans never went at in full because of the ramifications eradicating a world power would have on future prospects in the world community, what makes you the Chinese would, or even could, given that they need us?

Yet knowing you, you're going to come up with some sinophilic bullshit response about how China is already unstoppable, blah blah blah.

>>8891

this guy is my hero

"China could attempt to conquer America by force and absorb the territories held today by the US government into the PRC"

Someone has lost from view the relative importance of military forces here. In spite of grunting noises and "concern" from relevant US authorities (i.e. The Condi and Mullen) about the Chinese military, fact is that they are only "concerned" because China might achieve in some foreseeable future a force strong enough to COUNTER with some success an US military intervention in Asia or maybe get a bite at Taiwan. There is no way that "conquering USA" is possible or even on the table.

But now: the way of the US to get "out of debt" is of course: inflate the money supply (simply by going into debt nationally). Prices go "up" and prices for imported goods go up even faster. After some time, it's like "you know, you can still get a coffee at starbucks for the gazillion dollars you got in your coffers, trader".

Creditors will thus look early (like, now, or yesterday) into getting ahold of "solid stuff", like gold, real estate, US companies or a few F-15 Strike Eagles and associated maintenance contracts, he hee.

...one would have to add that if a "small country" did this to get out from the IMF thumb, a sudden "popular uprising" would emerge from its US embassy. But there is peon country, and then there is USA...

>>8896
Are you implying that conquering the United States is only on the table if the conqueror cares to and is capable of launching a full-scale invasion with immediate access to all conquered lands? Because I was implying by "conquering" that a nation might remotely launch devastating attacks via ICBMs, smuggled-in bioagents, etc, even if that rendered the conquered territory unusable for quite some time.

Nahh, for for scale planet-blow with subsequent gigadeath, the anger level and dogmatic retardedness will have to be much higher than they are now, and being out of cash isn't a good enough reason to strike out in a deadly embrace (nations never went to war over cash problems).

>>8903

>nations never went to war over cash problems

O rly?

Wasn't a cash problem, Jim.

Gulf War 1:

Saddam: Uh, you know, I want to suck Kuwait back into the motherland...
USA: We will consider that an Iraqi internal affair.
Saddam: GRAB!!
USA: NO! BAD SADDAM! LINE IN THE SAND etc.

(millions of dead later)

Gulf War 2:

Neocons: We gotta get a new foothold in the Middle East and open up oil for safe handling by non-Saudi multis. Also, Israel.
Condi: Gwana-gwana Mushroom Cloud gwana-gwana
Powell: Gwana-gwana Microbes gwana-gwana
Dubya: SADDAM WANTED TO KILL MY DAD!! No one wants to be a War President, but I am one!

(a million dead later)

Pakistan 1:

(etc...)

>>8912
You might want to read up on Iraq's relationship with Kuwait preceding, throughout, and immediately after the Iran-Iraq War, then. It's clear that you don't yet know or appreciate what Iraq was to Kuwait and why Iraq invaded in 1990 the very country they agreed to defend from invading Iranian troops less than a decade earlier.

In brief, Iraq took most of the casualties, both in terms of men and in terms of infrastructure, during the eight-year Iran-Iraq War. When the Iraqi government approached Kuwait and asked for financial assistance, Kuwait responded with "We've done all we can," an answer the Iraqis rejected.

Furthermore, the reason for US involvement in the Gulf was a) that Kuwait's oil fields were in danger and b) that their Saudi friends' oil fields were also in potential danger of being taken over. So again we return, fundamentally, to money. America was not there as a friend of Kuwait, but rather as a superficial friend of an Emir and his people who were ready to sign lopsided oil deals with their military saviors.

If that's not a war for money, then you tell me what is.

>>8915

I concede this argument.