How do we stop china from growing larger?
I'm with the chinks, they pay me to post. USA step up your game.
>>27944290
they have so many drones too
>US in charge of drone warfare
>>27944194
We have to kill their bulldozers of course.
Their environment will take care of that soon.
Same with global warming.
>>27944194
> Chinese engines
They stopped themselves.
>>27944434
>>27944434
>>27944434
>>27944445
those are improving pretty fast
>>27944194
GLA tunnels and demo trucks. Lots of demo trucks.
>>27944714
kek
Planting insurrection seems like the most effective way. They have literally warred against themselves for millennia. It is bound to happen again sooner to later.
>>27944445
Do you realise 25 years ago china was africa tier?
while people in the west continue to ignore them and they themselves keeping a low profile in the world stage 10 -15 years later suddenly china will be too large to handle
>>27946550
>too large to handle
for you
>>27944609
>Those copies are improving pretty fast
Fixed that for you, no need to thank me.
>>27944194
No.2 is a direct rip of the RQ-170.
>>27944194
>Stop inventing new drones
>China has nothing else to copy
>Profit
>>27944194
The one on the right side, 2nd to bottom is not a chinese drone. And we beat them by continuing to innovate instead of relying on trying to copy things years later.
![fca4f5df-716d-48da-8015-58115b44dcac.Full_1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YzDBbep.jpg "fca4f5df-716d-48da-8015-58115b44dcac.Full_1[1].jpg")
>>27946571
It is the RQ-170, pic was taken in Kandahar.
>>27944194
Fulfill MacArthurs dream
>>27944194
Put books on their head and if that doesn't work use the shrink-a-chink ray
>>27945604
I think this would be a pretty effective strategy; use psyops and insurrection to create major divisions manipulating either discrepancies in region/culture/ideology/social class or anything exploitable to make them less cohesive.
>>27944194
..."we" don't
China will do it all on their own. Because Chinese workers are now demanding higher wages, US firms are looking elsewhere for cheap, exploitable labor. This is very bad for China as the floor is falling out from their economy. Their recent stock crash and their housing crash is but one manifestation of it. Should the TPP pass Vietnam and the Philippines will become our new fuckboys in the region and unlike China they won't fuck with us.
But regardless of the TPP, the trend is against China. Mostly because nobody in the region likes them, whilst American companies are actively searching for a new, cheaper place to make garbage. The US will have a larger, and locally supported, presence in the region and China will be locked into the mainland again. Their tech itself is pretty shit too so any actual conflict between the US and them means a US victory.
>>27945604
>>27946711
both of you are armchair generals being dumb
China already has a large problem with it's rural inland areas being very poor compared to the coasts. Both are also crippled by pollution, which means dwindling water resources and arable land. This is why China is still, in 2015, a net food importer. It's why China has tried so hard to improve relations with Brazil, because Brazil is a "neutral" country that they can import food from (compared to the US). Of course Brazil is collapsing economically at the moment too.
The pollution not only cripples their ability to feed themselves, but also causes talent flight to everywhere else. Every country on earth has a problem with Chinese immigrants. Northern California and Vancouver especially so because Chinese people (especially inlanders) would rather choose poverty in the US than even a middle class existence in China. It makes more sense when you realize that here in the US, even in helLA, you can breathe the air.
Their internal problems will only get worse to the point where the CCP politburo cannot contain it. For all the issues the US has, it's unlikely to result in food riots or civil war. To this end the US doesn't need to fund anything, at this point all the US needs to do is to continue to let US companies choose other countries and let the floor fall out of the Chinese economy. Strategy is the best when you let a tower knock itself down rather than knocking it down yourself.
>>27946779
Why didn't these things you are saying happen in 1980, or 1990, or 2000?
China has pollution. But it's no worse than Western Europe in 1900.
They import food because it's way cheaper. China could and does make enough rice for everyone. It can't make beef, fish, and America's subsidized soybeans.
They look at the market and go with the best price. The US and EU spend $150 billion each year to subsidize their farmers, so China buys this artificially cheap food.
Most Chinese who study abroad return home permanently. The brain drain from China is way overplayed. The US has only added 100,000 Chinese nationals since 1990. Check the census.
Their internal problems are actually diminishing. Ask the average Chinese and he'll say air pollution, corruption, and free market intervention is all down since 2012-2013.
China is a paper tiger. Their economy is collapsing. Their investment in infrastructure was total garbage. Building shitty empty cities in the middle of nowhere? Nigga is you serious? China is a 3rd world country trying to sit at the big kid's table
>>27946833
>Why didn't these things you are saying happen in 1980, or 1990, or 2000?
Because it happened in the 1950s. Mao ascended into power and the US stopped giving China free money, equipment and food. The Great Famine then occurred and killed over 60 million people. Detente didn't happen until 1972 and SEZs weren't setup until 1978. China grew as a result of foreign investment in the 80s and 90s. In 2000 Clinton "permanently" normalized trade relations with China. Then starting in 2008 the Chinese government has had to pump trillions into their economy just to keep it afloat. In doing so they've encouraged a housing boom, a tech boom and stock boom. All three of those are bust now and the PRC (which is now filled with people who came of age in the 70s and 80s) doesn't know how to handle economic contraction.
>China has pollution. But it's no worse than Western Europe in 1900.
And Europe had two massive, extremely violent conflicts in 1914 and 1939. Without US/Soviet rebuilding efforts during the Cold War most of europe today would be mideast tier.
>China could and does make enough rice for everyone.
No, they don't. In fact grains (soybeans and corn) are among their top imports.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1784488/eib136.pdf
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6025b7c8-92ff-11e3-8ea7-00144feab7de.html#axzz3s8mZwl9x
Regardless, the fact is that they cannot feed themselves and are now directly exposed to price fluctuation on the global food market. There's a reason why the US subsidizes it's food industry so much, hungry people aren't happy people.
>Most Chinese who study abroad return home permanently.
No, they do not. The Princeling phenomenon is very small compared to the swarms of poor Chinese immigrants that flood into the US, Canada and Australia.
>Ask the average Chinese and he'll say air pollution, corruption, and free market intervention is all down since 2012-2013.
Based on what? The CCP always say people are saying that things are imporving
>>27946750
Looking at their job market.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-17/china-slowdown-update-at-least-job-market-s-not-falling-apart
I think China's job market is doing just fine. Their average pay went from $150 a month in 2009, to $800 a month in 2015.
You ask "how is this possible?"
Because their productivity went up just as much. There are many more reasons.
Sunk costs, internal/external economies of scale, education, domestic demand, and effective government policy.
The cheapest labor is moving to Southeast Asia/India. But most Chinese moved up into a higher production chain over the years.
TPP has no guarantee of passing.
It won't come into effect until late 2018-2019 anyways.
Most economists say that TPP will only boost world GDP by $80-90 billion by 2020. The reason everyone signed it is because the US is sacrificing it's Optimum Tarrifs for better ties with these nations.
But any realist would understand that $80-90 billion spread out over 12 countries, isn't changing the fact China is the biggest ASEAN trading partner by a long shot.
Their tech is improving faster than ours. The catch up effect.
>>27946566
Checked, you whore
>>27944194
TPP.
>>27946913
>But most Chinese moved up into a higher production chain over the years.
Not really. China has always had car factories, equipment factories etc as a result of communism. It's only now the chinese government is trying desperately to keep talent from fleeing to the US. So far it has not worked as US-bound Chinese immigration remains very high.
And for the most part, most Chinese people still live in squalor working inside textile factories. That's the whole point of having an export-driven economy. Again see the huge division between the "modern" coastal cities and impovrished rural interior.
>isn't changing the fact China is the biggest ASEAN trading partner by a long shot.
Yes, it will. The TPP includes provisions for copyright infringement specifically designed to mess with China. Either they pay American companies, or they don't get access to their business. Though again regardless of it's passage, China's aggressiveness in the SCS is causing everyone in the region to loathe them. This means more handouts for US companies from them.
>Their tech is improving faster than ours.
Improving yes. But only because they're buying off the shelf things instead of making it on their own. I take it you've heard about the "new silk road" yes? The locomotives on it are modified GE C-38AChe's. Of course the boats for said railroad (to get across the Caspian Sea) were likely built in the 1950s. All of China's nuclear reactors built after 1990 are imported.
The point is that "improving" doesn't mean much when they're just buying it without making it on their own. Any African dictator can buy 1950s tech (AKs) and "advance" their societies ten centuries technologically. Farmers in the mideast that don't even have proper sewage treatment use new smartphones. Does this make them engineers?
>>27946903
No I'm saying why didn't the Chinese economy supposedly crash and Chinese flee China in those days.
Lol. Their housing market is up. Their tech market is soaring. Their stock market is up on the year.
Are you just reading shit news and taking it as truth without looking at the IMF, World Bank, or economic indicators?
Europe would be only marginially worse if the marshall plan/soviet aid hadn't happened. Let's not act like Europeans destroyed everything. This is /k/.
None of that lists rice. As I already explained they import because it is cheaper, not because they have to.
Is the US completely dependent on steel because we import most of ours?
We subsidize our food because a lot of the senators come from farming states with big farm lobbies.
Swarms? Pic related
Also, link related
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/what-chinas-talking-about-today-is-american-citizenship-still-desirable/254070/
Based on what the US pollution trackers at the Beijing embassy and Shanghai associate say. Based upon what Bloomberg reports when they ask Chinese what they think. Based upon the fact China's corruption perception index went down again this year.
>>27946750
I'm not sure if you've realised this but China stopped exclusively making dollar store crap and clothes a long time ago. They've moved onto electronics and higher tech merchs.
>>27946958
Then explain their job market remaining afloat when they make 5 times more in just 6 years.
China isn't part of it. Whatever laws we enforce on China are already in place. China is only losing out on a minor potential benefit of being part of the TPP, and according to the negotiators China is invited.
Leapfrogging is better than not.
Also they aren't just leapfrogging. They are innovating.
For example, Apple (my $4,000 dollar stock) is losing market share in China to Chinese phone producers. China just exported a reactor design to Britain. A few southeast Asian nations and Nigeria have bought Chinese naval ships. Many others are looking at the most recent Chinese fighters (Pakistan).
>>27944400
The U.s's drone forces are both larger and more technologically advanced.
>>27946921
No guarantee it'll be passed. It won't come into effect until late 2018 anyways.
Here's a cool story on it from The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21672330-negotiators-agree-ambitious-trade-deal-opposition-its-ratification
>Since the fine print of the deal has not yet been published, and since tariff reductions form so small a part of its measures, it is very difficult to estimate how big a boost TPP will provide its members. The Peterson Institute for International Economics, another think-tank, estimated that it would boost the world economy by $223 billion by 2025. The greatest impact will be felt not in America, but in the less developed members. The study estimates that Vietnamese GDP could rise by as much as an additional 10% over the same period.
>In the long run, TPP’s impact will depend on whether or not its membership expands, as it in theory might once the deal is up and running. South Korea, not one of the original 12, is pressing for swift accession. The crucial question is China. Many think America only pushed TPP forward in order to bolster its influence in Asia and counter China’s. But TPP’s economic significance will be severely curtailed if it does not include the country that lies at the heart of almost all Asia’s supply chains. China may now step up its push for a broader regional free-trade deal, built in part on TPP, says Jeffrey Schott, a former American trade negotiator.
>>27946962
>>27946984
>>27946988
I see World War 1 repeating itself. The U.S. is trying to encircle China with American allies as Britain did with Germany nearly a century ago.
History is starting to repeat itself again.
I can't wait.
>>27946962
>No I'm saying why didn't the Chinese economy supposedly crash and Chinese flee China in those days.
Their economy did crash, spectacularly so under Mao in the 1950s. The damage wasn't repaired until the 80s when US money started flowing in again. Are you thick?
>Their housing market is up. Their tech market is soaring. Their stock market is up on the year.
Their housing market has deflated, their tech market is crashing, their stock market is down 40% from it's peak. That is all lost money, people who got in late now have lost their savings. This means less domestic consumption especially when US companies are looking elsewhere for labor.
>Let's not act like Europeans destroyed everything.
WW2 decimated everything from eastern France to Moscow.
>Swarms? Pic related
Aside from the fact that your image agrees with everything I'm say (30% increase in Chinese immigrants in the US from 2000 to 2010), here's some other sources that prove that atlantic op-ed wrong:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/chinese-immigrants-united-states
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2013-09/17/content_16975662.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/business/asia-u-s-immigrants/
>Based upon what Bloomberg reports when they ask Chinese what they think. Based upon the fact China's corruption perception index went down again this year.
Because Chinamen in China are so honest. China is a country where you go to jail if you say bad things about the government. Not that princelings which inhabit coastal cities would though.
>>27946984
The problem is that they have to compete with SoK and Japan. Meanwhile Vietnam takes all their shitty jobs. Their "high end" companies continue to struggle meanwhile the basis for their economy (cheap plastic crap) falls out.
>>27946988
>Then explain their job market remaining afloat when they make 5 times more in just 6 years.
Because their government pumps money into their top companies. Or at least is trying to now.
>Also they aren't just leapfrogging. They are innovating.
Wrong, they aren't doing shit. They rely completely on foreigners for everything nice they have. They can't even feed themselves, which is something ANY remotely "innovative" country can do.
>China just exported a reactor design to Britain
China is funding it, not actually building it. This is how China operates overseas, the same is true for their support of the TCCD in Turkey.
>>27947015
>The U.S. is trying to encircle China
China is already encircled because nobody in the south pacific (nor Russia) like them. This is the result of their aggressiveness, Vietnam in particular is mad as fuck over it and is trying their hardest to get US troops in them.
>>27944194
Wait.
Demographic collapse will handle the rest.
>>27947071
America is older and will be older until 2035 or so. Look at pew projections. That was before they removed the two child policy.
>>27947047
Nigger. I specified 1980, 90, and 2000 fo a fucking reason.
Their housing market prices have risen for 3 months now. They dropped 6% from Oct 2014 to July 2015, and have risen 4% since the bottom.
That's after they rose 200% 2000-2014. That minor deflation was healthy.
Their stock market is UP on the year. The Nasdaq is below its March 2000 peak. Does that mean everyone is fucked because a bubble in one stock index popped? No.
China's stock market was a bubble, but it was a small one worth only 8 trillion at its peak. Also, bubbles are supposed to pop. Only 90 million of 1.4 billion Chinese are stock investors compared to 140 million of 320 million Americans.
It fucked the people who gambled. Welcome to the free market.
No it didn't. France was relatively untouched by WW2. Same for most of Germany. Eastern Europe was already poor. Southern Europe witnessed very little destructive fighting in the major cities.
Population growth does not equal immigrants.
What I am showing is that at most 1.4 million Chinese have come to the US in the past 20 years. That's .1% of China's population.
Nice tabloids.
>>27947160
>Nigger. I specified 1980, 90, and 2000 fo a fucking reason.
And I have too. Their economy has only grown in those three decades due to foreign investment. China is a factory, one that's replaceable.
>Their stock market is UP on the year.
That does not change the fact that it's still down from it's peak. People who got in late (ie most investors, following a government hype campaign and rapid deregulation) lost money. That money is gone, and no amount of damage control can change it.
>Also, bubbles are supposed to pop.
It is popping. Down 40% from it's peak.
>It fucked the people who gambled.
Yes it did. But ultimately those people still lost money and thus cannot spend like they used to. This is a large amount of people, china may have less investors than the US overall but their investors make up a larger percent of their new middle class. Thus they are more exposed than their US counterparts.
> That's .1% of China's population.
The .1% percent that's important. Overwhelmingly they are poor or lower income professionals. Normally these people would stay in China and be middle class there. Instead they leave and be middle class elsewhere. This is a big problem for China.
>>27947068
Their government has been pumping money into those companies for 6 years?
You know pumping money into companies only leads to inflation. It doesn't make the amount produced in a nation expand. Why doesn't the US do that?
Okay go fuck yourself.
You have no valid response.
No. They funded Hinkley and have been giving permission to build a reactor in another area in a few years as long as the Government fully approves construction come that day. The dedign on both reactors is a Chinese/French joint design.
China has a diplomatic ally in Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, North Korea, Mongolia, Nepal, and Russia. Look at the UN votes.
Vietnam has no such treaty with the US and there's been no talk of US troops in the nation. You're making up shit.
>>27944194
>Genocide
It is the only way.
>>27947206
>arguing with an obvious chinaboo
just stop matey
>>27944194
stop outsourcing your manufacturing to them
also stop letting them hack your drone tech
>>27947211
>Their government has been pumping money into those companies for 6 years?
Yes. As they own them, you do realize that all of China's large companies are state-owned operates right?
>You have no valid response.
You've only proven that you no nothing about the Chinese government or economy. I guess arguing further is pointless, as you are completely clueless here.
>Vietnam has no such treaty with the US and there's been no talk of US troops in the nation. You're making up shit.
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=86422
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/15/us-vietnamusa-navy-idUSBREA4E06R20140515#1AeOrxIkQhikjWAM.97
http://tuoitrenews.vn/international/31755/us-likely-to-make-another-east-vietnam-sea-patrol-before-yearend-navy-official
http://atimes.com/2015/10/us-naval-passage-that-angered-beijing-pleases-some-in-china-wary-vietnam/
>“I think we should welcome and support the U.S. action,” Tran Cong Truc, former director of Vietnam’s Government Border Committee, said on Wednesday, adding, “This is good news.”
>“What the U.S. did helps in part to make China’s claims [in the region] invalid,” Truc said. “China’s claims and ambitions go against the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” he added.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
>>27947206
No you kept talking about Mao when I SPECIFICALLY mentioned 80-2000.
These foreign investors invested for a reason.
A factory that's replaceable? Hahahahahaahahahahahahahaha
Yes surely I can make a billion dollar factory in China and then just move it, all its supporting industries, and educated workforce to Vietnam.
Vietnam has a 15th of China's population by the way. And it's way more communist and corrupt than China. My best friend left their for a reason.
The Nasdaq is still down from its peak. It didn't have an effect on our economy. Why? Because only a small amount of investors bought in. They got burnt but all the other Americans were fine.
"People who got in late(ie most investors, following a government hype campaign and rapid deregulation)"
You're making up shit again. 2013-2014 the Chinese government encouraged the stock market growth because they were linking it to foreign investors via Hong Kong.
Once 2015 arrived the Chinese government made it known time and time again that margin lending (what was making the bubble) was being cracked down on. The bubble popped specifically because China annouced a ban on new margin lending in the stock market. That was in June.
Finally, the main thing hurt by a stock market collapse is Business Investment. Not consumption.
It's actually down only 25%. All your information is out of date or wrong.
The people who got fucked were a small portion of China. You haven't seen the stock market form a new bubble because these people now know better.
Even if 1.4 million Chinese immigrated and no Chinese Americans had kids in the intervening 20 years, it's still .1%.
.1% is meaningless to a nation where they have too many people.
>>27947254
And that still doesn't make GDP expand. You can't keep Keynesing away.
Look at China's government debt. It's 35% of GDP. They can't hide that debt away since they have to buy on the sovereign debt market.
A good portion of the biggest Chinese companies are private. For example Weibo, Alibaba, or Sinosteel.
Finally, China's state companies have been making profits for many years. Thousands of foreign investors buy their shares. Including Lloyds, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley. Obviously someone likes them.
In none of those sources does it say that Vietnam is madly clamoring for US troops to be based there.
We don't have a defense treaty with Vietnam either.
Give me a source showing that I'm wrong since that's what I argued.
I think I do, but if you don't think so how about the Chief Economist of the East Asia region for the International Monetary Fund.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-REB-34298
>But the International Monetary Fund’s top Asia economist, Changyong Rhee, says such pessimism may be unwarranted. A booming services sector—such as shipping and retail—is offsetting the collapse in manufacturing, he argues.
>“We don’t think there’s enough evidence based on the manufacturing sector that there will be a hard landing,” Mr. Rhee said in an interview. “They definitely have a manufacturing slowdown, an overcapacity problem. But other parts of China are actually growing faster.
He's Filipino by the way.
>>27947322
Gonna bump this so anon can respond.
Threadly reminder that China's consumption boom will BTFO America's hope in crashing China's economy via trade-war and sanctions.
>>27944609
On a geological time scale, sure.
>>27948883
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21667927-chinas-consumption-boom-not-enough-succour-world-economy-doughty-not
Not enough to save world economy, but enough for China's.
>>27948914
J-10B single engine fighter jets and all Chinese Flankers are now powered by Chinese engines. With no crash to date, but a lot of Top-Gun styled maneuvers against US P-8A recon planes.
The US needed 30 years to get the F-100 reliable enough to not become a lawndart. China took 20 for her equivalent, the WS-10.
>>27948918
If a nation of close to 2 billion people started becoming like America and eating wan tans like burgers cant pump up the world economy than literally NOTHING CAN.
>>27948936
The US developed the tech.
The Chinese just stole it and it still took them 2/3's the time.
>>27944609
>engine
They have been working on turbofans for years and still haven't been able to make one that even touches the lifespan and reliability of western designs. That's pretty fucking pathetic.
>>27946550
What an adorable uneducated thing to say. If you had any god damn clue about the subject, you wouldn't be saying such egregiously stupid shit.
>>27948999
CFM developed it, the CFM-56 was a civilan engine core. At that time, it was a revolutionary design to turn it into a low bypass afterburning turbofan, not known in both US or France or China. That's why it took long in both USA and China. F-100 and WS-10 are both derived from the same CFM-56 engine core.
China wasnt new in engine tecnology, even then, as they have successfully indigenized the Mk202 Spey as the WS-9. With a vastly inferior industrial base compared to the US, and sanctioned to hell by the West (and by Russia, who didnt grant licence to the AL-31F to China).
>>27948936
You dumbass nigger, that's a total false equivalency. The US did it several decades before the Chinese ever did. And the life of Chinese engines is still dog shit compared to Western and even Russian engines.
>>27949027
So by your idiotic logic, China making the equivalent of a Pentium 4 today would somehow mean they're actually ahead.
Go play in a mine field, son.
>>27949010
metallurgy of super-alloys for hot-section single-crystal engine blades is a closely guarded secret. China couldnt just reverse engineer russian engine blades, but had to start from scratch in their development.
This takes time. But now, they are already good enough for 1500+ hours of engine life on their WS-10s.
This is still below West, but already on par with nowaday's Russian engines.
>>27949041
No, it is still a 7,5-8:1 TW engine that can power most 4th gen planes and serve as interim for 5th gen planes. This is already as good as a quad-core CPU, albeit not as good as the latest quad quo shit.
And it gives them the industrial and technological base for the devoplemt of more modern engines, with fewer compressor stages and lower weight for more TW.
>>27949081
You're ignoring the fact that the Chinese don't make any advancement in the aerospace field. They simply play catch up and that's all they're ever going to be good at.
>>27947322
>China's state companies have been making profits for many years
It's still government supported. Especially when the state openly shits on companies that compete with the "official" company.
>In none of those sources does it say that Vietnam is madly clamoring for US troops to be based there.
so you didn't read them
>>But the International Monetary Fund’s top Asia economist, Changyong Rhee, says such pessimism may be unwarranted. A booming services sector—such as shipping and retail—is offsetting the collapse in manufacturing, he argues.
the IMF were dumb enough to give billions of euros to the PIGS, what makes you think their opinion is worthwhile?
Again, you're clearly clueless on these matters.
>>27948918
>but enough for China's.
>stock market down 40% from peak
>3+ trillion USD gone
>everything is alright guys!
china's experiment with capitalism doesn't mesh well with their style of government
>>27948918
What I find particularly hilarious is that for roughly the past 15 years, the stated primary economic goal of China has been to transition towards more domestic consumption as a % of GDP. HOWEVER, in those 15 years, the % of GDP that comes from domestic consumption has actually DECREASED slightly.
>>27948989
> ~1.4 billion
> close to 2 billion
Pick one.
>>27949027
Almost everything in the first paragraph is wrong. The F-100 is not based on the CFM-56 core, the F-110 is. Which makes sense since the F-100 is PW and the F-110 is GE (who make up half of CFM, and whos F-101 engine had technology that the CFM-56 core was based on (along with the CF6 and TF39 engines), and it only took 14 years to go from the F100-100 to the much more reliable F100-220.
>>27949173
More like their attempt on a socialistic, authoritarian pseudocapitalistic economic policy is failing.
