Not until they invade and slaughter everyone here. And no that's probably not going to happen. Hilarious that people think this way though.
This is among the dumbest arguments I've ever read on the Internet. I'm not sure if I'm not just being trolled, but it's like someone arguing Google didn't make Google Reader because they made Google Search. You can do more than one thing.
For reference:
http://newamsterdamhistorycenter.org/education/schaghen.html
But that's not the only reason it's a bad comparison. When Manhattan was purchased there was no market. Chinese are buying things at market prices. Which I was taught are fair.
But then will start the games of complicated / opaque business ownership structures allowing for individuals to own lots of real estate through different channels to make it look like it's separate entities.
And there is zero motivation from most of the world's leadership to clean up business ownership structure transparency because so many of them are ... participants.
China produces lots of manufactured goods, and sells them to the US. The US produces tons of valuable urban real estate and exports it to China. (Similarly the US produces lots of higher education, and exports it in the form of international students)
Economically, there is a fundamental difference between finite, rent-generating resources like land, and value-added goods like Chinese trinkets or international students.
Exporting value-added goods builds the economy. Exporting rent-collecting resources results in significant long-term harm to the economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_account
Just like a business, a country can maintain short term losses by accepting outside investment, or debt. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Almost all companies take on debt and investment to fund their growth.
Also, just like a business, you can’t do this forever. At some point the debt comes due, and/or you end up selling the whole business.
Outside investment in businesses is not a bad thing. Outside investment in land is.
American policy makers have chosen policies (eg zoning law) that make it easy to produce valuable urban residences. Now they have a massive competitive advantage in high-end residences, so of course they will become exporters.
“Capable of growth” and “not finite” are not the same thing.
> there is a fundamental difference between finite, rent-generating resources like land, and value-added goods
i'm in the market for a few TEUs of US land, preferably downtown san francisco. i'll pick it up in Hamburg or Antwerp and would like a house on it.
sarcasm off - just no.
No, what we got was a new robber baron class of ultra-rich billionaires the likes of which haven't been seen since the federal government had to break up Standard Oil, etc... Which has led to extreme wealth inequality and a complete lack of access to _our fucking politics_ for the vast majority of Americans.
How is this even connected to the flow of the conversation?
Do you respond this way to everyhing? I can just imagine your household.
[Kids running in]: We got a pizza party at school!
[Parent]: No, what we got was a new robber baron class of ultra-rich billionaires the likes of which haven't been seen ...
It's not, you just read it that way.
> How is this even connected to the flow of the conversation?
One thing (outsourcing our manufacturing -> getting cheap Chinese shit in return) has clearly led to the other (the profits not trickling down through the economy -> our political parties becoming influence peddlers).
For some bizarre reason you seem really offended by what I wrote. I think that your comment says more about you than what you think it says about me. Have a good one.
>It's not, you just read it that way.
Your comment literally started by saying "No." In English, that means you disagree with what I wrote. It's followed by a comma, where in a standard English construction you would present your counterargument.
> For some bizarre reason you seem really offended by what I wrote.
I wasn't offended at all. I was a little overwhelmed by the apparent stupidity of the non sequitur response (and I use 'apparent' very deliberately -- it's possible you miswrote what you meant, or I misread it). I think this summarizes my reaction best:
You'll also have to forgive me for not responding to that specific critique until you came along, I guess. I'd have been happy to reply to that previously if I hadn't been very condescendingly talked down to about the literal definition of the word no and then told that I ran a household like an asshole, etc...
Chinese citizens have invested a ton in US businesses, which is sort of okay. They also bought a ton of land in the US, which led to skyrocketing housing prices, and in the long term, if it continues unabated, will lead to the US paying tribute to China in the form of rents on US land. There is no upside to this. We got cheap Chinese plastic trinkets. They got our real estate. Didn't we do this to the indigenous people here once ourselves?
To be clear: I'm not opposed to being able to buy foreign land per se, but I am opposed to how one-sided this is. For the most part, US entities can't really own real estate in China (and even with Chinese entities, it's complex, but that's another story).