Republicans In crisis and a Nation and a Democracy on the Sacrificial Alter

Sure, but if the USA is fucked and China economy is already maimed and bleeding from the blast, what choice do they have but to sell USA debt for cheap to try to make something back. When the USA goes from being the driver of the world economy to the burst cyst of the worlds economy what choice will they have other then to try to cut it out?

See this makes no sense: china needs the USA yet also wants to "bring it down"?

If the USA defaults there will be no more dollars going back to China, China will suffer a depression and that is when the USA will become useless to China.

Oh of course, I was just speaking specifically of china for Billy sake and his pathological fear of china.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is a common belief, but ignores the facts that China has already cut it trade with US down from 42% of the total to less than 16% in the last five or six years. Also ignores that China's internal market is potentially four times larger than that of the US, just based on population with real purchasing power growing by double digits (admittedly from a lower base) instead of shrinking as in the US. Likewise ignores the rapid growth of China's trade with the suppliers of its needed raw materials, energy, and food stocks. That trade is growing at least by double digits annually too.

China's wages have grown so much and so rapidly that China must import large fraction of semi-finished goods like fans, wiring harnesses, simple electrical components, etc. to install in its high value goods like cars TV, computers, etc. made and exported mainly now to other parts of the developing world, not the US & EU that already have the basic items of a modern society. Likewise ignores that China has a system of government with mainly engineers, not one lawyer, in the central committee of the CCP who server for 10 year terms and usually are reappointed, so can fund projects of great economic benefit even if that benefit is not realized for some decades. Like China's "Half Nile" which delivers more than 50% of the Nile's annual water flow from the water rich south to the dry NE Bejiing area. Funding for the initial design studies began in 1950! More details and contrast with the inept USA in quote at end.

SUMMARY: You have the same POV as most ostriches with their head in the sand. I.e. don't know what is happening around them. Pull your head up in time to hear China tell you:
Go to Hell. We don't need to sell to you and won't lend more to you. Our factories are hard pressed to supply domestic demand and customers with cash.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL, yeah you keep thinking that Billy T. The Tooth Fairy didn't give China the trillion dollars it has invested in US Treasuries. Facts are not beliefs, they are facts. And I have never known a capitalist to refuse more business. This right wing mythos that you have to rub and kiss Buddha bellies to make them work is just frankly silly. Your beliefs Billy T are just not supported by the facts.

By ERIC BRADNER | 9/4/13 10:01 AM EDT

The U.S. trade deficit with China topped $30 billion for the first time in July, boosting the United States’ overall trade gap and prompting a new round of complaints that China isn’t playing fair.

The overall U.S. trade deficit grew 13.3 percent to $39.1 billion in July — a major uptick a month after shrinking to its lowest level in nearly four years, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...-in-us-trade-deficit-96257.html#ixzz2hlRsnon0

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cruz and the Gang: Slick It Up To Ya

The Worst Kept Secret Meeting In Town?

Beltway gossip is great fun:

Sen. Ted Cruz met with roughly 15 to 20 House Republicans for around two hours late Monday night at the Capitol Hill watering hole Tortilla Coast.

The group appeared to be talking strategy about how they should respond to a tentative Senate deal to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling without addressing Obamacare in a substantive way, according to sources who witnessed the gathering. The Texas Republican senator and many of the House Republicans in attendance had insisted on including amendments aimed at dismantling Obamacare in the continuing resolution that was intended to avert the current shutdown.

Sources said the House Republicans meeting in the basement of Tortilla Coast with Cruz were some of the most conservative in the House: Reps. Louie Gohmert of Texas, Steve King of Iowa, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, Steve Southerland II of Florida, Mark Meadows of North Carolina and Justin Amash of Michigan.

The group is a collection of members who have often given leadership headaches in recent years by opposing both compromise measures as well as packages crafted by fellow Republicans. And, it seems, leadership unwittingly became aware of the meetup.

While the dinner meeting was held in a private basement room, the group was spotted by Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who was dining with some other members, including Gregg Harper, R-Miss. McCarthy is a regular at the Capitol Hill restaurant, and a source said he seemed particularly interested in what the group was up to.

(Fuller)​

The clear indication, of course, is that Sen. Cruz and his cohorts are plotting to complicate the whole process. As it is, a deal crafted in the Senate might also need to be specifically maneuvered through:

The process for moving any agreement to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling could get tricky in the Senate this week.

If the House doesn’t send over what’s known as a “message” containing tax provisions, Senate leaders may have to resort to using a new, untested procedural tool.

Without unanimous consent, that process could still push the floor activity past the deadline, however.

Back in January, the Senate set up a new procedure for the 113th Congress that would allow Majority Leader Harry Reid to truncate the process of limiting debate on legislative business.

The Nevada Democrat has yet to deploy it though, because it could create new unpredictability for both Reid and his GOP counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

In short, the resolution created a way around the usual process which forces the Senate to spend days on breaking a filibuster of a motion to proceed. But it also requires Reid allows each party to offer two amendments. The agreement came about as part of the deal to avoid use of the “nuclear option” to change the Senate’s rules with a simple majority vote ....

(Lesniewski)​

And over in the House, Republicans have done some maneuvering of their own:

House Democrats are fuming about a rule change adopted by Republicans just before the government shut down on Oct. 1, arguing it shows GOP leaders closed agencies intentionally.

Under long-standing House rules, any member of the chamber can bring a measure to the floor. But Republicans altered the rule governing legislation to fund the government so that only House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) holds the power to make such a motion.

The practical effect of that change became apparent on Saturday, when Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, tried to bring the Senate-passed continuing resolution (CR) to the floor, only to be shot down.

"That motion may be offered only by the majority leader or his designee," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who was presiding over the chamber at the time.

The response didn't sit well with Van Hollen.

"Why are the rules rigged to keep the government shut down?" he asked.

The disagreement over how to reopen the government hinges on the scope of the chambers' spending proposals, with Democrats demanding the Senate's "clean" bill and most Republicans insisting any CR must make changes to ObamaCare.

Under the standing rules of the House, any member can make a "privileged" motion "to dispose of any amendment" when a "stage of disagreement" between the House and Senate "has been reached on a bill or resolution." That privilege, though rarely used, offers a roundabout way for the minority party to force votes on the floor.

But in the last hour of Sept. 30, Republicans on the House Rules Committee altered the rule governing the CR debate so that such a motion "may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee."

Explaining the change, Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) made no attempt to disguise the Republicans' motivations. The alteration was made, he said, to prevent Democrats from bringing the Senate's "clean" CR to the floor, just as Republicans were calling for a conference on the competing bills.

"There are rules related to privileged motions that could take place almost effective immediately, and we're trying to go to conference," Sessions said.

(Lillis)​

This might be one of those transdimensional chess games. Nonetheless, if Republican hardliners play every last card, yes, as Rep. John Runyan (R-NJ03) explained, "It's going to get real shitty on the seventeenth."
____________________

Notes:

Fuller, Matt. "Ted Cruz, House Republicans Meet in Secret at Tortilla Coast". 218. October 15, 2013. Blogs.RollCall.com. October 15, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/ted-cruz-house-republicans-meet-in-secret-at-tortilla-coast/

Lesniewski, Niels. "Debt Limit Deal Could Test New Floor Procedure". #WGDB. October 14, 2013. Blogs.RollCall.com. October 14, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/debt-limit-deal-could-test-new-floor-procedure/

Lillis, Mike. "Dems decry midnight rule change". The Hill. October 14, 2013. TheHill.com. October 14, 2013. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328413-dems-decry-midnight-rule-change

 

Barring a sudden change in Cruz and barring any exceptional use of Senate rules, I don't see how we avoid a default. There just isn't enough time to avoid a default. I know that puts me in the minority opinion. But unless Reid pulls some magic rabbits out of his hat or unless Cruz and Lee have a godly intervention, I just don't see how legislation passes in time to avoid a default.

 

Yes they are. You should get your head out of the sand and learn what the facts are!
China's trade is rapidly growing; China has become the world's largest trader but, and this was my point, which you missed (or intentionally ducked by speaking only of the large US trade deficit with China) China's trade with the US, as a fraction of it total, is rapidly falling. US is not of much importance to China any more as part of its global trade.
Now less than 16% of China's total trade, down for 42% five years ago. China's trade with almost all others than the US and EU is a RAPIDLY growing fraction of the total.
Hell just Chinese trade with with ASEAN nations (only 10% of China's 2012 total but growing at greater than 18% year!)* will surpass that with US or EU in 2015:

So 400.9B in 2012 up from 292.8B in 2010 is an increase of 37% in only two years. with ASEAN nations.
As you said: Facts are facts: China's Trade is rapid growing (even some with the US) but China's trade with the US is rapidly shrinking as percent of the total.

So 241.5B in 2011 up from 130B in 2009 is an increase of 86% in only two years! with Latin America.
As you said: Facts are facts: China's Trade is rapid growing (even some with the US) but China's trade with the US is rapidly shrinking as percent of the total.

So 385B in 2015 up from 198.5B in 2012 is an increase of 94% in three years! with Africa.
As you said: Facts are facts: China's Trade is rapid growing (even some with the US) but China's trade with the US is rapidly shrinking as percent of the total.

Again:Learn the FACTS and Pull your head up out of the sand in time to hear China tell you:
Go to Hell. We don't need to sell to you and won't lend more to you. Our factories are hard pressed to supply domestic demand and customers with cash.

*China's $400.9B ASEAN 2012 trade was ~10% of China's 2012 $3870B total but ASEAN trade ALONE, will be more than China's US trade in 2015!

(And that only extends current trends - does not assume US is in deep depression, as I predict. If I'm correct, Brazil/Chinese trade alone will be much greater than US Chinese trade!)

 

By servicing the debt with our revenues and cutting programs like Social Security completely. It sucks but that's the only way to manage that without additional borrowing authority.

 

And you might just hear the US say:

GO TO HELL. We don't need your money or your crappy cheap merchandise. We'd rather trim our own expenses than deal with you.

Both are equally likely.

(BTW text sized appropriately since the US is generally louder)

 

Well, They Sure as Hell Weren't "Separated at Birth"

Odd Couple, or Perfect Match?

Say what you will about the emerging budget deal, or the Cruz question, but this Associated Press photo of Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

... is so distracting that I just can't think.

 

Is it the looks on their faces alone could be used to make a comedic movie?

 

I would agree. Often when US politicians have no choice they spin the facts to make it seem like the new conditions were the US's choice. I.e. when China turns the money facet off (or the bond vigilantes or the tea party types do) You will never hear them say: "Boy did we screw up." They will find some one to blame.
E.g. "China dumped shoddy goods on us - but we are not going to take it any more. etc."*

Only real problem is it will be hard to claim, China is going to Hell with its GDP growing several times faster than the US's is and the purchasing power of their populations rising instead of declining. Perhaps US can re-define hell as lack of spiritualism and growing materialism?

* All together now, lean out your window and yell: We are not going to take it any more!!!

 

A Brief Consideration of Potentials

A Brief Consideration of Potentials

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Steve Benen has been a bit alarmist this morning, albeit with what turns out to be good reason.

There was palpable relief last night surrounding the debt ceiling. The House had withdrawn from the process; Senate leaders had crafted a bipartisan compromise; and the twin crises appeared to be nearing their end. All the House had to do was bring the Senate measure to the floor.

This apparently won't happen. Hopes that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) might muster the courage to lead his members in a responsible direction were dashed this morning, as House Republicans decided to reject the Senate's bipartisan compromise and move forward with their own plan.

House Republicans will vote as early as Tuesday on its own legislation to avert a default on the national debt and end a two-week-old closure of the federal government, tailored in a way to win over conservatives who have expressed skepticism toward an emerging Senate deal.​

The new House GOP plan would open the government through mid-January and extend the debt through Feb. 7, which would be roughly in line with the Senate package. But House Republicans also intend to repeal the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act for two years, and force members of Congress and White House staffers to pay more for health care.

Why would this be a high priority? Because House Republicans are more than a little nutty.​

With privileged motion reserved to the Majority Leader, an extraordinary maneuver undertaken for incredibly cynical reasons, a discharge petition would be the only way to force a House vote on any Senate resolution, barring Eric Cantor deciding to blink. Or the Speaker; if the House vote botches, or the Senate disposes of it quickly enough, they can put the heat back on Boehner, and hope he decides for once in his Speakership to actually do his job.

Rachel Maddow reminded last week that we cannot necessarily assess the conventional wisdom according to the regular formulae. As I noted elsewhere last night:

A simple presumption—they won't really try to force a default—no longer seems so secure because this crew is not playing by the sorts of rules that make sense to Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who replaced Republican stalwart Bob Bennett, who was in turn apparently deemed not conservative enough. Don't forget the losses, either; Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, after she knocked off Rep. Mike Castle; and Richard Mourdock, who defeated none other than the Statesman of the Senate, Richard Lugar, who was also apparently deemed not conservative enough.

And we cannot say we weren't warned. How many of these jokers rode into Congress on a wave of chants like, "Cut it or shut it!" As long as we continue to assess this hardline uprising in the GOP by the old conventional wisdome formulae, we will continue to misunderestimate their determination to prove once and for all that government just doesn't work.​

Which is why it starts becoming important to consider the significance of, say, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC11) being a Birther.

No, really.

Meadows, the author of a letter to Speaker Boehner—outlining the shutdown demand and garnering eighty signatures from fellow House Republicans—is on record repeatedly using his favorite catch-phrase, that 2012 would be the year we sent Obama "back to Kenya or wherever".

Now, here's the tricky part: Meadows is one of a number of legislators elected in 2010 and 2012 on an Obamanoia platform that fundamentally rejects the legitimacy of the Obama presidency. This isn't just about political gamesmanship, but challenging the right of the Obama presidency to exist, and failing that to erase from effect as much of his term as possible. This shutdown and debt standoff are the visible expressions of the face of Obamanoia. Sending Obama "back to Kenya or wherever" might, in some Republicans' minds, have nothing at all to do with race, but we are down to watching Boehner and Cantor, trying to figure out what they will do. Will Cantor introduce the Senate CR without explicit instruction from Boehner? Would that not be something to behold? Will Boehner actually do something useful? The magic eight ball is broken right now. There are new variables in the forumla, and it seems nobody knows how they resolve, or where they even go: Coefficient? Exponent? Denominator? What does this even mean? There is no value to be assigned to the variable; we have no sense of scale against which to compare its effects in the various conventional wisdom schema. The Beltway oracles seem to be flying blind.

Can I stack any more metaphors without toppling into a flaming heap?

This isn't really because "they hate America". This isn't just because "they hate government". Is it really different, this time, or have they really started to convince us they really are that really, truly crazy?

The logical leap (really, the assumption) everyone's making is that Boehner will put the Senate plan on the floor before midnight, rather than kowtow to the dead-enders to preserve his speakership. There are almost certainly 217-plus votes in the House for any deal that comes out of the Senate, which means we'll only crash through the debt limit deadline if Boehner chooses to let the country default the same way he chose to shut down the government.

That would be a truly ignominious act. The operating assumption at the White House — and I think basically everywhere — is that Boehner's self-dealing enough to shut down the government for personal reasons, but not to blow past the debt limit. He might futz around ahead of the deadline, try to send the bill back to the Senate with riders that the Senate will strip and go a few rounds of ping-pong like he did on September 30.

But when time's up, he'll put the Senate plan on the floor and get out of the way. It looks like that assumption is about to be tested.

(Beutler)​

____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "House GOP to reject bipartisan crisis resolution". The Maddow Blog. October 15, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. October 15, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2...se-gop-to-reject-bipartisan-crisis-resolution

Maddow, Rachel. "New class of GOP brings its own rulebook". The Rachel Maddow Show. October 11, 2013. Video.MSNBC.MSN.com. October 15, 2013. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rachel-maddow/53260998#53260998

Beutler, Brian. "Get nervous: The fate of the country is in John Boehner's hands". Salon. October 14, 2013. Salon.com. October 15, 2013. http://www.salon.com/2013/10/14/get_nervous_the_fate_of_the_country_is_in_john_boehners_hands/

 

I am not sure what you are saying here, but that is one reason why Congress needs to raise the debt ceiling…so that the nation can pay its bills.

 

Yeah, you keep believing that Buddha Belly Fiction if it makes you feel better. But the unpleasant and relevant facts for you are The United States is China’s largest trading partner and trade is not charity. China’s economy is heavily dependent on US exports and they are in no position to unilaterally act against the US without inflicting great pain and political instability on themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_China

 

Disfunctional House Republicans

It appears Boehner cannot even pass his bill, the bill he announced today.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/15/politics/shutdown-showdown/

 

Son of a Sisyphus

Look to the larger point. Bill need not be advocating the obvious point in order to make it: This is what Republicans want.

The idea is that our debtholders come first; pay down the debt.

But it also requires that we look at domestic obligations, such as SS and MC payouts, as something other than obligations. This is why the GOP is hooked on the word "entitlement".

The difference is that we cannot skip out on our obligation to our creditors, but we can instead skip out on entitlements.

It's a rhetorical nicety that gets overlooked in the American discourse, but it is one of vital implication.

Remember, the Democrats are begging for an excremental CR, and holding the line on the individual mandate; conservativess are, de facto winning. And the government being shut down? Failing to work properly? They're proving a thesis by throwing the test. Yes, it is true that government doesn't work, but only if you really go out of your way to botch it.

Government sidelined? Call it a Republican win. Government unable to attend its financial obligations? Call it a Republican win.

It sucks, as Bill says, but we should also remember that it is exactly what conservatives are after. One need not advocate the obvious in order to state the point.

This might go down as the Tortilla Coast Coup. Republicans are fretting about protecting Boehner's speakership, but frankly I don't see how another Plan B fiasco doesn't throw his office into doubt.

Republican leaders presented the plan to House members with just two days to go before a Treasury Department deadline for lifting the nation’s borrowing limit and avoiding a potentially catastrophic default on the nation's debts.

Senior House Republicans had hoped to jump out in front of the Senate plan, but a two-hour, closed-door Republican conference meeting that began with a collective rendition of “Amazing Grace” ended without consensus, and lawmakers said conservatives were demanding changes to the plan.

“There are a lot of opinions about which direction to go, and there have been no decisions about what exactly we will do,” Boehner told reporters after the meeting. “We’re going to continue work with our members on both sides of the aisle to try to make sure that there is no issue of default and to get our government reopened.”

Democrats and the White House immediately panned the proposal, meaning that Republicans would need to find most — if not all — of the 217 votes needed for passage on their own.

“It’s unproductive and a waste of time,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. “The House legislation will not pass the Senate.”

The Speaker reiterated that he wanted to avert a first-ever default.

“I have made clear for months and months that the idea of default is wrong, and we shouldn’t get anywhere close to it,” Boehner said. “We’re talking with our members on both sides of the aisle to try to find a way forward today.”

(Berman)​

An aside, for future consideration when history untangles this godawful weave: Why, exactly, did Republicans elect Boehner to the speakership if they have no intention of following his lead?

We come back to the House Republican moderates; where are they in all of this? Why will they not line up behind the Speaker and put an end to all of this until, well, just after the new year, as such?

At some point, we must imagine Sisyphus happy.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Lindsey Graham's unique list of priorities". The Maddow Blog. October 14, 2013. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. October 15, 2013. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/10/14/20960570-lindsey-grahams-unique-list-of-priorities

Berman, Russell. "House hopes to move own debt plan, but may not have the votes". The Hill. October 15, 2013. TheHill.com. October 15, 2013. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/328519-house-to-vote-tuesday-on-its-own-plan

 

I agree. I was answering your point, which was "Barring a sudden change in Cruz and barring any exceptional use of Senate rules, I don't see how we avoid a default."

A few definitions of terms here:
Default means you refuse to service the debt. In credit card terms it would be equivalent to saying "I'm not making enough money and I'm not going to make any more monthly payments."
Raising the debt ceiling is increasing your borrowing limit. In credit card terms it would be equivalent to the bank refusing to increase your credit.

Thus when the government refuses to increase the debt limit, that does not automatically mean you default. It does mean you can no longer borrow money. However, you still have the income you normally get via taxation, bond sales etc. This income is no longer sufficient to pay all the costs that the government incurs. Thus you have to choose. You can choose to fund almost everything but not service the debt. This would have catastrophic results. You can choose to service the debt but not provide money to programs like Medicare, Social Security, military, HUD etc. This would also be bad.

What that means is that "refusing to increase the debt ceiling" does not equal "default."

 

Thanks for the clarification; I thought that might have been your point. First let’s be clear. Managing government finances is in no way similar to managing individual finances. The government can raise taxes, individuals cannot. Sovereign governments can print money, individuals cannot. Sovereign governments live for centuries if not eons, individuals do not. Individuals are not required to take care of the entire neighborhood when the economy goes south by supporting them with food and shelter. Individuals are not required to raise armies and defend themselves and their neighbors.

Two, you are laboring under a very cherry picked definition of default. Default as defined by Webster’s means, “failure to do something required by duty or law”. By law, the government is mandated to pay Social Security, Medicare, veteran’s payments, military salaries, contractors, pensions, etc. If the government fails to make those payments, it is in default. It has not fulfilled its legally required duties. The bottom line here is if the government is unable to pay all of its legal obligations, which will be the case if the debt ceiling is not raised, the government will be in a state of default even if it manages to pay its bond holders.

Three, the government doesn’t have enough money to pay all of its legal obligations without expanding the money supply. That is why it borrows money. If it doesn’t borrow money, it doesn’t have the money it needs to pay its bills and maintain monetary stability. That is why failure to raise the debt ceiling means default for the US government.

 

No fiction only many numerical trade facts in my post, none of which do you even attempt to dispute. Also note US is China's second largest market. EU is the largest so the one "fact" you gave is wrong. In 2011 China increased its total trade by 22.5% to 3,6420.6 Billion with exports greater than import by 1,551.4 billion (I.e. Unlike the US China runs a trade surplus. Data from source of quote below.) BTW, why is it you give no numbers, only unsupported claims?

From your post 274 link, we see China's trade with EU was 567.2 billion and with the US was 446.7 Billion in 2011 or of the 36420.6 billion total trade of China in 2011, the US trade was 446.7/3642.1 = 12.26% and falling each year as a fraction of the total.

Summary of post 266 regional trade increases by China (all with references given in post 266, of course):
400.9B in 2012 up from 292.8B in 2010 is up by 37% in only two years with ASEAN nations.
241.5B in 2011 up from 130B in 2009 is up by 86% in only two years with Latin America.
385B in 2015 up from 198.5B in 2012 is up by 94% in three years with Africa.

400.9 + 241.5 + 385 = 1027.4B > 1,013.9B = 446.7 + 567.2 Although not all the same years it illustrates that not even including China's major Asian trading partners (Korea, Japan, India, Russia, Hong Kong & Taiwan) US and EU are of lesser importance than these three groups.

Reason why over all China's trade increase was only 22.5% is trade with US and EU is slowly increasing if at all. They will soon be so unimportant to China that China will cease sales to them as China is growing tired of lending them money with which to buy. Its factories will be hard pressed to keep up with the rapidly growing exports to countries that have cash with which to buy and the growing internal demand (four times the US population with real / purchasing power/ salaries growing by double digits.)

 

Grasping for straws Billy T? The US is China's largest export country, per my previous post. And contrary to your posts, China cannot cut trade with the US without inflicting serious harm on its economy. Just keep clinging to your Buddha belly if it gives you comfort. But the reality is China is in no position to inflict serious harm on the US economy.