Anyway, imagine this scenario. The big school bully asks the little wimpy kid for money. He gives the money of his own volition, on a promise that it will be repaid. This happens over a period of time.

One day, the little kid asks for the money to be repaid. The bully says he doesn't have it and so won't pay it back. What next?
======================

As we have already discussed, there is no question of america trying to avoid paying its debt through taking military action against its creditors.

your point is therefore meaingless.

notwithstanding this though, your arguments again appear to be counterproductive to your argument. if america was so economically powerful, why would it need to borrow money from somewhere else ? and why would that somewhere else be in a position to lend the money if it was so economically inferior to its would be customer ?

generally with money lending schemes, such as retail banking, the lender is more economically powerful than the borrower

"In this case you presented spending figures and claimed that they proved beyond doubt that china is not a military superpower"

How can they ??
We don't have his definition of "military superpower" yet ...

JPB: So your argument, which flies in the face of published facts and figures, is that they may be false and that China is probably lying? Sounds more like conjecture than informed argument

....to go with his defintition of economic superpower

myhammers, your only facts and figures are those that the governments choose to release. Have you never heard of military secrets?

So, the gist of all this is that, in your collective opinions, America is not the world's number 1 economy (and therefore not an economic superpower), and that China is telling massive porkies about how much military hardware it actually has. Right.

Anyway, I think there is about as much chance of China winning the World Cup as there is of Tottenham finding £450m to build a new stadium.

JPB: So your argument, which flies in the face of published facts and figures, is that they may be false and that China is probably lying? Sounds more like conjecture than informed argument
========================

no, my points have been :

1. china might not have disclosed its military spending (which is perfectly possible)

2. china's military influence has led to america increasing its presence in the pacific and idian oceans and in australia

3. china's cost are llikely to be lower than americas.


You have presented the figures as indisputable proof of your suggestion. I have merely pointed out that it is no such proof.

myhammers.....you're making it up again. naught naughty.

"So, the gist of all this is that, in your collective opinions"

Is that you still have not provided your working definitions for the terms :

- superpower
- economic superpower
- military superpower.


Correct.

So there it is...China will win the WC some time soon after 2016.

America is the worlds largest economy, and currently with the worlds largest debt....owed to several countries including China and ourselves. As a result, they are paying massive amounts of money in interest every year just to keep their heads above water. This leaves them exceptionally weak.

All countries lie about military strength, capability and spend...if they didn't we wouldn't need covert intelligence organisations.

And you called us naive?

"All countries lie about military strength, capability and spend..."

All "open" countries tend to obsfucate/conceal the specifics in one lump sum.

Regimes like the PRC "publish" what they want, and their citizens believe it.

Groove: Every country lies. But can China lie enough to explain the difference between their spending and America's? $700bn compared to $100bn? That would have to be one hell of a whopper, don't you think?

You're missing the point myhammers, deliberately or otherwise.

China owns $1.2 billion of US debt, they have a significant stake in, and can exert a significant impact on, the US economy and there is nothing any amount of US tanks or guns can do about it

Apologies...that should read $1.2 TRILLION...which makes the US military spend look pretty shabby in comparison

Groove: You said all countries lie about their spending. I replied it would have to be an astronomical lie to explain away China's $100bn compared to America's $700bn.
Not missing the point at all

are you saying then that china are incapable of telling an "astronomical lie" ?

As low as 1% , the interest paid to China each yr to service the debt is a 1/6 of their annual military budget.

OK, you're delibrately missing all of the other points though. To think military spend is the only measure of a nations strength is about as naive as it gets.

"To think military spend is the only measure of a nations strength is about as naive as it gets"

myhammers :

Is the above your definition of "nation strength" ??

Next time you think the US would declare war on China over it's debts have a look at the website below listing all the other countries they owe. Do you really think the rest of the world would back them defaulting on payments?

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

Is it any wonder Levy can feed you lot any rubbish he wants?

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
========================

Ireland

Answer the questions, myhammers.

What are your "definitions" ... ??

comment by myhammers (U2373)
posted 1 minute ago
Is it any wonder Levy can feed you lot any rubbish he wants?
------------------------------------------------------
David 'We're buying Carroll' Gold

So come on then oh fountain of all wisdom, RDBD has asked on numerous occasions for your definitions...haven't seen a response yet though

JPB...Greece were hoping they were on the list so they might apply for a parachute payment