The debate "How can the US pay off the Chinese debts" was started by
December 2, 2017, 9:53 am.
3 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
posted the first argument on this debate as a disagreeing part.
blue_rayy, afterlife27 and 1 visitor agree.
historybuff and 7 visitors disagree.
The easy answer would be to become self sufficient, the hard answer would be to get out of debt.
Because we buy products from China, falling deeper into debt gives us no way to pay them back, paying what we do not have to get what we need is not a good business model, and if we become self sufficient before we can get out of debt China will try to collect early because our self sufficiency damages their own income.
So what can we do about our debt? We certainly shouldn't allow the deficit model we have right now, because lowering the deficit saves no money whatsoever, it merely limits how much debt we are getting into. While I would be welcome to a plan to spend more to save later, these plans are usually unsubstantial and may not pan out.
Our presence in wartime would make sense to boost the economy, but without a proper moderator, a "pump" can damage us as well. The cost is not nearly as much and more than one might think at the same time. The cost of going to war pays skilled workers, goes to manufacturers, and takes the spoils. However, material does not always pay for itself in the efforts used to make these gains, and the less efficient (like fuel to hold a helicopter in the air) or work without spoils (such as keeping another country's people safe) will be a drain.
The answer usually has been, as it probably always will be, war. Pulling people out leaves skilled workers, and though the immediete lump sum is no longer paid away, returns and drains increase. To avoid this, a 100% cut is not possible, but we can redirect this to a more functional use.
Our presence in place of other countries has gone unpaid, so it would make more sense to have them pay for protection. Indigent countries are not a reflection of only needing to help the rich, but a poor planned model of a country that will not survive even after protection because true reforms are necessary, not a band aid.
Our charity work would be missed and much of a complaint, yet our United Nations has stood by when slaughters have occurred and do not have the leverage or moral high ground for such complaints. Economy fixes war, and war fixes economy, but reliability decides where to start first.
This is ignoring the immediete social programs for our own people, but I imagine war is the largest slice in our economy that can avoid a moral dillema. Protecting who and how and then working up to a final budget, against a mechanism with too many layers on a budget.