The China boom continues

A year ago the Chinese stock market was crashing, Chinese exports were declining, and many sectors such as steel production were going through a wrenching downturn.  Many pundits predicted a sharp slowdown or even recession.  But not me:

My general view is that most types of recession are almost unforecastable, and that the least bad prediction is always “more of the same.”  (Here I’m thinking of ordinary demand shocks or financial crisis; a recession caused by something like the Syrian civil war can be predicted once the war begins.)  Thus people who in 2007 didn’t predict a recession for 2008 were making sensible predictions, and those who did predict it were making foolish predictions, and just got lucky.  So I’m going to predict no recession for China, this year or next.

Kudos to Julian Evans-Pritchard, who kept his head when many were insisting that the Chinese sky was falling.

I was too pessimistic. The new figures are well above the 6.0% growth that I predicted a year ago. Even better, there are increasing signs of a healthy rebalancing of the economy:

China’s economy is in the midst of a wrenching transition from a growth model based on construction and heavy industry towards greater reliance on consumption and services.

In a sign of progress towards rebalancing, investment contributed only 2.5 percentage points to GDP growth in the first half, down from 2.9 points last year, while the consumption contribution rose from 4.2 points to 4.9 points. Net exports subtracted 0.7 points.

And this is also quite positive:

“The value added of the tertiary industry accounted for 54.1 percent of GDP, 1.8 percentage points higher than the same period last year, 14.7 percentage points higher than that of the secondary industry,” said the NBS. . . .

Financial markets have responded positively to the news, an unsurprising outcome given it’s as close to a “Goldilocks” scenario as one can get.

As China develops, the service sector will rise into the 70% to 80% of GDP range. When the infrastructure is fully built out, and their population starts declining, the state sector (dominant in infrastructure) will shrink rapidly. More good news. Indeed this may already be happening faster than the official data suggests:

Chinese statisticians are studying ways to include industries such as ride-sharing, crowd sourcing and couch surfing in China’s official growth figures as a way to more accurately reflect the “new economy”.

While some economists are sceptical of efforts to pump up China’s gross domestic product numbers, few can deny that the mobile phones in the hands of 700m Chinese have begun to transform the economy, along with apps such as Uber, Didi Dache and other sharing economy services. . . .

While the “new economy” includes sectors partially accounted for in GDP, such as green energy, robotics, and mobile communications, the sharing and digital economies are among those that are wholly ignored, Mr Xu said.

Chen Qin, chief economist of BBD, an economics research group that has a “New Economy Index” including data such as advertisements on hiring websites, says China’s way of calculating GDP ignores many small and medium-sized enterprises in high-growth sectors.

This is because GDP figures are calculated based on taking figures from all the big enterprises — which tend to be the old industrial firms — and a sample of small and medium-sized enterprises. SMEs in new sectors are under-represented in the sample. BBD found that activity in undercounted sectors made up almost a third of total economic activity.

Global living standards continue to improve rapidly—a true golden age for humanity.

 


Tags:

 
 
 

43 Responses to “The China boom continues”

  1. Gravatar of H_WASSHOI (Maekawa Miku-nyan lover) H_WASSHOI (Maekawa Miku-nyan lover)
    15. July 2016 at 07:00

    Sumner-sensei,
    Is still China under tight money?

    To play more Pokémon GO, we need more humanity.

  2. Gravatar of Steven Kopits Steven Kopits
    15. July 2016 at 07:41

    Having lost its case wrt UNCLOS, China is now contemplating installing an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea. If it does so, there will be war.

  3. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    15. July 2016 at 08:41

    Wasshoi, It’s getting better, as the yuan has been devalued substantially since last year.

    Steven, War?

    I hope the US isn’t that stupid, but if Trump is elected . . .

  4. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    15. July 2016 at 08:47

    “Many pundits predicted a sharp slowdown or even recession. But not me:”

    -Same here.

    T*ler C*wen was making noises about the Chinese sky falling or something, but nobody remembers what he said a year ago. More reasons not to trust him.

    “The new figures are well above the 6.0% growth that I predicted a year ago.”

    -I do not believe these statistics.

    “Global living standards continue to improve rapidly—a true golden age for humanity.”

    -Indeed.

    I think Trump’s VP pick seriously waters down the message of the campaign, BTW. Pence is pro-trade, pro-Cruz, pro-Iraq-War, anti-Muslim-ban, pro-touchback-amnesty, anti-bailout, very anti-abortion -very weak tea! Poor pick, but it could have been worse.

    Can America be Made Great Again… with Pence? I doubt it.

  5. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    15. July 2016 at 08:48

    By “same here”, I mean I predicted there would be no recession. The preconditions for it were not there.

  6. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    15. July 2016 at 08:50

    BTW, Muslim ban now! In China, too.

  7. Gravatar of rayward rayward
    15. July 2016 at 09:13

    The Chinese economic miracle is a combination of enormous private investment in productive capital in collaboration with western firms shifting production to low cost China and enormous public investment in infrastructure, which I suppose offends everyone, on the left and the right. Lest some forget, there are two Chinas, the political China based in Beijing and the economic China based in Shenzhen; and contrary to (reasonable) assumptions, the political China and the economic China are not of the same mind with the same concerns and goals. The saber rattling in America over China comes from political opportunists seeking votes from know-nothings. No, China did not steal American jobs from American firms, China collaborated with American firms to shift production to low cost China in order to generate higher profits for the American firms. Having built an industrial juggernaut by collaborating with American firms, China now wishes to produce goods in China for firms in China to compete against goods produced by and for American and other western firms (what I refer to as the new phase of globalization); China the collaborator has become China the competitor. In this new phase of globalization, American firms are moving production from China to other low cost countries, such as Vietnam, in an effort to replicate the model created in collaboration with China. The South China Sea is the shared route for shipping competing goods (whether produced in China or Vietnam) to America and Europe; hence, the saber rattling over jurisdiction of the sea lanes. Would China risk war in order to impede the flow of traffic in the South China Sea? Would America risk war in order to keep the sea lanes open? Looking back 100 plus years ago, memories of the far east evoke memories (including lived memories) of the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, an attack that was preordained when America challenged Japan’s sphere of influence by defeating (in the Spanish American War) and then replacing (in the Philippine American War) Spain in the Philippines. American and Japan competed for military dominance; America and China compete for economic dominance. God help us if the saber rattlers among us succeed in converting what is economic competition into military competition.

  8. Gravatar of rayward rayward
    15. July 2016 at 09:18

    Not likely to be missed by Sumner, but I just wanted to point out that Noah Smith has attributed something to Sumner (“in some sense”) that I don’t believe fairly represents his views. Smith: “Many people seem to think that inflation and recession are equal, symmetric dangers. This is implicit in the idea of nominal GDP (NGDP) targeting, which is promoted by economists like Scott Sumner at George Mason University’s Mercatus Institute. Since NGDP growth is just the sum of real GDP growth and inflation, Sumner’s policy implies that one percentage point of higher inflation is in some sense just as bad as a one-point reduction in growth. But in reality, a loss of one percentage point of GDP probably is many times worse than a 1 percent rise in inflation.” http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-14/overcoming-our-inordinate-fear-of-inflation

  9. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    15. July 2016 at 10:35

    Rayward, I did a post on it at Econlog.

  10. Gravatar of AbsolueZero AbsolueZero
    15. July 2016 at 12:08

    Someone said: “Having lost its case wrt UNCLOS, China is now contemplating installing an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the South China Sea. …”

    No, China did not lose “its case”. Under UNCLOS, nations have the right to opt out of arbitration. China has done this, just as number of countries have in the past. So it wasn’t China’s case to begin with. The Philippines chose to go ahead and asked for a ruling from the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague (the PCA). This is also allowed under UNCLOS. But this made the case formally not a arbitration, as there’s only one party involved. While permanent, the ruling is not binding in any way, and the PCA has no enforcement power whatsoever. China will ignore this as they have said they would for several years, and just as other countries (including the US) have ignored rulings in the past.

    Regarding ADIZ, an ADIZ is not “installed”, but decleared. The necessary facilities, including radar sites, are already in place. All it takes is the publication of coordinates and clarification of rules. And no, China is not only now “contemplating” declaring an ADIZ in the South China sea as a result of the ruling by the PCA. An ADIZ in the South China Sea was talked about even before the one in the East China Sea was declared. The disputes in the South China Sea go back more than a century.

  11. Gravatar of LC LC
    15. July 2016 at 12:15

    Scott:

    I haven’t found Q2Q growth figures from latest release.

    Do you have that available?

  12. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    15. July 2016 at 13:21

    Sumner believes in China’s fudged numbers, hook, lie and stinker.

  13. Gravatar of Brett Brett
    15. July 2016 at 13:27

    Service Sector development in China should be fascinating to watch. China has enormous inequality of incomes and gigantic cities, allowing for incredible diversity and specialization in the quantity and quality of services provided in a market.

  14. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    15. July 2016 at 14:17

    O/T: Scott does this sound like a proposal to punish people for thought crimes to you?

  15. Gravatar of Steve Steve
    15. July 2016 at 14:22

    Harding,

    If you don’t like Pence, you could always write in “George Wallace”

    That’s Trump to a T–a racist democrat.

  16. Gravatar of TravisV TravisV
    15. July 2016 at 14:40

    David Glasner just posted an awesome critique of Krugman on his blog!

  17. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    15. July 2016 at 15:07

    @Steve, it may not just be Harding who doesn’t like Pence: certainly Ann Coulter is no fan. But perhaps Trump himself isn’t so keen on the guy either. Nor Pence on Trump for that matter.

  18. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    15. July 2016 at 15:15

    @Harding, how do you ban Muslims? Have you ever heard of lying? It’s what I’d do if I was desperate to get into your country and the requirement was I had to “believe” or “disbelieve” in whatever ridiculous imaginary sky fairies you required of me. What are you going to do? Read my brain waves? I suppose you’d love such technology because it’d be a great tool for jack booted authoritarians, but thought crime detection technology isn’t yet perfected. I know: bummer, right? =(

  19. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    15. July 2016 at 15:21

    Great news for China and the people of China is great. It seems a refreshingly happy broadly win-win development.

    So, China is outrageously nationalistic, outrageously racist, and takes harsh anti-Muslim actions. They officially ban hijabs, ban Muslim fasting, and directly interfere and speak against the Muslim faith. I know a close western white friend who lived in China for several years teaching English and expressed a disgust at this fierce nationalism/pride/racism/bigotry that is just completely unlike anything you would experience in the western world.

    Sumner labels Trump and right wing nationalist groups in Europe as bigots, but it seems by any objective comparison, China is far more extreme in that sense, and most people like Sumner have simply never expected China to act differently or held them to some moral standard of forfeiting their culture and ethnicity to benefit complete strangers. I’d be interested in Sumner’s comment on this.

    It seems the people of Europe and the west should be allowed similar pursuit of self interest that excludes outsiders while not being allowed to hurt outsiders.

  20. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    15. July 2016 at 15:57

    @Massimo, maybe you’re onto something: maybe we do need to repress science hating dimwits and their ridiculous fairy tales. We can harvest their organs or do something else useful with them.

  21. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    15. July 2016 at 16:18

    maybe we do need to repress science hating dimwits and their ridiculous fairy tales.

    Ted Kaczynski’s in jail and the rest inhabit only the space between your ears.

  22. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    15. July 2016 at 16:20

    @Harding, how do you ban Muslims?

    You can screen or prohibit natives of particular countries. If an applicant wishes for a dispensation based on being in a cultural minority in said country, he can present proofs and submit to an extended background check.

  23. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    15. July 2016 at 17:07

    Yes, you were correct about the Chinese economy and wrong about the south CHINA sea….it does not belong to China despite the word CHINA in its name. How they actually believe that they own this entire huge area of international waters is beyond comprehension….no matter how many islands they build. The Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, etc.. …..these are important countries/economies also …

  24. Gravatar of AbsoluteZero AbsoluteZero
    15. July 2016 at 17:26

    Someone said: “How they actually believe that they own this entire huge area of international waters is beyond comprehension …”

    No. That’s a very common misconception and something constantly repeated in the mainstream media of the West, in particular the US.

    China claims all the islands in the South China Sea. And, with the land, associated territorial waters and EEZ.

    For more details see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMBLEjg86pw

    “… The Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. … these are important countries/economies also …”

    Insteresting that Taiwan is included in the list. The so-called Nine Dash Line is not from the PRC, it is from the ROC, aka Taiwan. Indeed, today, Taiwan claims more territories than the PRC, as it still claims land the PRC has given up in negotiations with Russia, for example.

  25. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    15. July 2016 at 17:28

    China Q2 domestic retail sales up more than 10% YOY, despite soft exports due to weakling Western economies….and we want to give them advice?

  26. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    15. July 2016 at 19:51

    @Harding, Pence may not have been your 1st choice, but I took a stab at cleaning up the logo so that’s it suitable for viewing by children.

  27. Gravatar of rayward rayward
    16. July 2016 at 04:24

    Inflation/recession trade off: Does Noah Smith’s “good post on the costs of inflation and recession” mean that Sumner agrees with Smith that Sumner believes that the trade off between them is equal (i.e., a 1% rise in inflation is equal to a 1% drop in GDP)? That question Sumner didn’t answer in his post on Econlog. While I appreciate Sumner’s debating technique (i.e., praising or agreeing with one’s adversary while destroying his argument), I will suggest that Smith’s intent was to raise doubt about NGDPLT by attributing to it (and to Sumner and others who promote it) the assumption that the inflation/recession trade off is equal; hence, if they aren’t equal, NGDPLT is useless as a foundation for monetary policy. in other words, Smith’s “good post” was actually an attack on NGDPLT, not a meditation on the inflation/recession trade off.

  28. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    16. July 2016 at 05:49

    LC, I believe it was 1.8% for RGDP.

    Massimo, You said:

    “this fierce nationalism/pride/racism/bigotry that is just completely unlike anything you would experience in the western world.”

    You are always good for a few laughs. Ever been to a football game in Spain?

    You said:

    “It seems the people of Europe and the west should be allowed similar pursuit of self interest that excludes outsiders while not being allowed to hurt outsiders.”

    I never said they should not. I believe that countries should be allowed to control their borders.

    Not sure what your comment has to do with this post on GDP–are should sure it’s in the right place?

    Engineer, You said:

    “How they actually believe that they own this entire huge area of international waters is beyond comprehension…”

    Yes, it would be like the US claiming it owns vast areas of territorial waters around Hawaii and the Aleutians. Where’d China get that crazy idea?

    Rayward, Only one paragraph was devoted to NGDPLT, and I criticized that paragraph. The rest was on the welfare costs of inflation being overrated.

  29. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    16. July 2016 at 11:54

    I’m not an legal expert on the the Law of the Sea..
    (http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/staff/law_of_sea.html) but…it is my understanding that:

    The U.S. proclaims a 12 nm territorial sea, a 24 nm contiguous zone, and a 200 nm EEZ, consistent with customary international law as codified in UNCLOS. These boundaries do not extend that far when they overlap boundaries from Canada and Russia.

    China’s claim has been ruled inconsistent with the law of the sea and UNCLOS as unanimously ruled from the Hague….they overlap with boundaries from the Philippines and Vietnam. Building an island from a coral reef does not change this.

    If you want to go back to ancient historical claims, then Italy owns all of the Mediterranean and the Spaniards own the Caribbean and the English own everything else.

  30. Gravatar of AbsoluteZero AbsoluteZero
    16. July 2016 at 14:51

    Someone said: “The U.S. proclaims a 12 nm territorial sea, a 24 nm contiguous zone, and a 200 nm EEZ, consistent with customary international law as codified in UNCLOS. These boundaries do not extend that far when they overlap boundaries from Canada and Russia.

    China’s claim has been ruled inconsistent with the law of the sea and UNCLOS as unanimously ruled from the Hague….they overlap with boundaries from the Philippines and Vietnam. Building an island from a coral reef does not change this.”

    China claims exactly the same as the US and almost all other countries, 12nm territorial water, 24nm contiguous zone, and 200nm EEZ. Overlapping EEZs or even territorial water is not only possible, but common in many areas. The US is extremely lucky to have both coasts face open oceans. In cases of overlap, it is customary for the countries involved to negotiate directly, and the usual solution is center line.

    China’s claims in the South China Sea all stem from land claims. UNCLOS by nature has nothing to say about land claims. This is the reason China opted out of arbitration in the first place.

    Again, to learn more, see
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMBLEjg86pw

    Incidentally, Taiwan does not accept the report from the PCA either. It asserts that Taiping Island, currently occupied by Taiwan, is not an island, based on a notion of “stable community”. The 600+ page report is being scrutinized very carefully by experts, and not just in China, because, using the same arguments, many other islands currently being occupied and are in dispute can be rendered non-islands, including Wake, Baker, Howland, Jarvis, Okinotori, and more.

    And why is it that ASEAN will not make a statement about the PCA ruling and report?

  31. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    16. July 2016 at 19:43

    I am not so concerned about US owning Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands as I am that the US sails the Seventh Fleet, bristling with warplanes, missiles, and probably nuclear armaments, up and down the coast of China.

    Why is this done?

    It appears the goal is to stimulate Chinese military outlays, and perhaps in that regard the US globalists-militarists have been successful.

  32. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    17. July 2016 at 04:11

    Why is this done?

    Probably because China’s political structure and military industrial complex has not kept up with the rest of it’s society. We are currently in the region at the behest of China’s neighbors to protect them from their Gunboat diplomacy and intimidation.

    Unfortunately, the Russian and Chinese governments and military industrial complexes do not seem to get it and we will all suffer from it.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/08/25/islamic-state-might-have-taken-advanced-manpads-from-syrian-airfield

  33. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    17. July 2016 at 05:54

    BTW, European and US airspace has been violated many times by Russian aircraft in the last couple of years..and the Russians often have ships and submarines off of the US coasts.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politics/us-russian-bombers-july-4-intercept/

    Also, the US surface navy was denuclearized unilaterally by the US back in the 90s and 00s, there are no nuclear weapons on the 7th fleet. Those would be the Tridents, which are part of the triad and which I would imagine never go anywhere near the coast of any country…albeit irrelevant, since their missiles can hit anywhere in the world.

    China has armed their man made island with advanced weapons, and the 7th fleet sent a couple of ships by it in international waters to establish that navigational freedom had not been compromised.

  34. Gravatar of AbsoluteZero AbsoluteZero
    17. July 2016 at 06:09

    engineer said: “Probably because China’s political structure and military industrial complex has not kept up with the rest of it’s society.”

    Have you been to China? Have you lived in China? Do you know Chinese? Do you know anything about the Chinese political system? Can you name the levels a person has to go through, starting with joining the party, in order to get to the top?

    Chinese people overwhelmingly support their government, including the political system. And the support for their military is beyond overwhelming.

    “We are currently in the region at the behest of China’s neighbors to protect them from their Gunboat diplomacy and intimidation.”

    Who are “we”?

    No. Only Vietnam and the Philippines have officially requested this. China favors direct negotiation between and among countries involved when there is a dispute, and this is what it has done with a number of countries, notable with Russia. That is how all land disputes between Russia and China have been resolved. China has also done this with India, with some disputes revolved, but some remain and negotiations continue.

    In the South China Sea, China has done this with at least Malaysia. This is the main reason why, while Malaysia has always operated oil rigs in regions that overlap with China’s claimed EEZ, there have never been issues like those with Vietnam and the Philippines.

    Notably, after the ruling from the PCA came out, only two countries in the region openly endorsed it, the Philippines, obviously, and Vietnam. The other countries have largely remained silent. And ASEAN declined to issue a statement. Taiwan openly opposed it, mainly due to the part concerning Taiping Island.

    “China has armed their man made island with advanced weapons, and the 7th fleet sent a couple of ships by it in international waters to establish that navigational freedom had not been compromised.”

    This is another argument constantly repeated in the mainstream media of the US. There has never been any issue of freedom of navigation by nonmilitary vessels in the area. It is in China’s interest, more than any other country, to maintain this.

    China, however, disagrees with the US interpretation of freedom of navigation regarding military vessels. Both Russia and India have officially stated that they agree with China’s interpretation. And a number of other countries, from Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa have also stated they agree with China’s interepretion on this issue.

  35. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    17. July 2016 at 06:29

    Engineer, Absolutezero is right, the Chinese claim is consistent with the approach taken by the US in Hawaii.

  36. Gravatar of AbsoluteZero AbsoluteZero
    17. July 2016 at 06:49

    Scott,
    Thanks. I apologize for these technically off-topic comments. I offer only facts. I consider countering non-facts to be important.

  37. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    17. July 2016 at 11:31

    “I offer only facts”…too funny..tell that to the Hague…..I’ll rest on the “facts” as the overwhelming majority of knowledgeable “non-Chinese” observers see them…

  38. Gravatar of AbsoluteZero AbsoluteZero
    17. July 2016 at 13:26

    engineer said: “… too funny … tell that to the Hague …”

    1. You never responded to any of the points or questions in my comments directly. Please go back and see if you can counter or answer anything factually. Watch the talk I pointed to and see if you can counter any of the points made by the speaker factually. I welcome this, as, unlike many, I don’t know that I’m right. If I’m not, the first thing I want is to be corrected.

    2. Just because one court has made a ruling does not imply that it is correct, and certainly not that it is definitively correct. History is filled with cases where court rulings turned out to be incorrect. Just take one example from this case. Look up Taiping Island. See if you or anybody agree that it is not an island, as the PCA concluded.

    3. I am both Canadian and American. Ethnically I am 7/8 Chinese and 1/8 French. I live and work primarily in the US, though I travel quite a bit.

    4. History is filled with examples where the majority opinion turned out to be mistaken. And it’s not even clear that there’s a clear majority in this case.

    Scott,
    My apologies again. This comment is also an attempt at countering non-facts, however implied.

  39. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    17. July 2016 at 13:47

    AbsoluteZero, Thanks, but it’s probably not worth wasting your time, he’s made up his mind. Reminds me of the Trump supporters I’ve been “debating”.

  40. Gravatar of AbsoluteZero AbsoluteZero
    17. July 2016 at 13:56

    Scott,
    Of course. Thank you, for your patience and tolerance.

  41. Gravatar of engineer engineer
    17. July 2016 at 19:13

    AbsoluteZero,

    I am not an expert on the Chinese and the relevant claim. I do see that the Chinese people overwhelmingly support their government in this action, as do the people of Vietnam and the Philippines support their government actions, which makes it a particularly dangerous situation. Nationalism is raising all over the world.

    I am willing to take another look at the situation and approach with an open mind. As the events of the last 15 years has shown, the US does not have all the answers, and has certainly made lots of mistakes that has not resulted in a more peaceful world. What I have read on it seemed pretty convincing to me, but certainly not worth causing a war over. China did controlled the area for some period of time, but you can say that about lots of areas around the world, that is why the law of the seas was developed and China signed on to it. The law conflicts with historical control of areas all over the world. Direct negotiations between the parties is of course always the best path forward and the law needs to applied uniformly. Lets face it, the reason it has escalated is that there is a lot of oil there.

    The biggest threat to the region continues to be North Korea. China seems to think that THAAD has something to do with the South China sea and not about defending against a rogue state with nuclear missiles. We have had missile defense systems in South Korea for 30 years, THAAD is just a more advanced/capable system that is needed to counter the more advanced capabilities that the North Koreans are achieving. It is promising that China is or was finally coming around to viewing NK as a threat…

    The other option, Japan having nuclear weapons. Lets not forget that a major reason for US commitments to the region were to prevent militarization of Japan. Maybe Trump is right.

  42. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    18. July 2016 at 05:37

    Reminds me of the Trump supporters I’ve been “debating”.

    Your method of ‘debating’ is to ignore about 2/3 of what’s said to you, misrepresent the rest, and then insult the person.

  43. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    18. July 2016 at 13:10

    Art, I doubt that 1/3 is even worth responding to, so I’m doing a favor to the Trumpistas.

Leave a Reply