Dept of Government Effficiency ( DOGE)

[kherg007]

I guess you can say having read several of Michael Lewis' books that I am a fan. I generally enjoy his books. However, I would stop short of calling him an expert on:

Silicon Valley
Baseball Management
Tennessee Football Moms
Heuristics
Cryptocurrency (The New York Times wrote of Lewis's extensive access to Bankman-Fried that he had "a front-row seat—from which he could apparently see nothing.")

Getting the picture.

Last, but not least, I would not consider him an expert on government efficiency simply because he spoke with some government employees to write a book. From what I have heard, the book has a strong political overtone and did not investigate the other side of government effectiveness. Then there's his lack of management experience.

He doesn't have to be an expert. Malcolm Gladwell is not an expert at anything but he knows how to translate things into more readily understandable form. However, Gladwell often goes too far on sharpening and leveling and gets it wrong at times.
Lewis does similar things, although he had worked on wall street thus knows how financial shit works from the inside. One of the things he reports are numbers of rural folks who think the government is bloated etc but are shocked to find out a lot of the stuff they depend on comes from government programs. Just like those people carrying signs that say "keep your government hands off my medicare!!"
The vast majority of Americans don't know what is going on inside of government because governmentcant advertise. The info is there, BTW, but nobody is taking the the time to find out and read their web pages etc. Thus the government is handicapped in that it cannot advertise about all the great stuff it is doing. It can only educate on a specific program to instruct people what to do but those releases have to be approved. Those who hate it can spend unlimited time and money trashing it however.
And who is the government? Americans. Who funds their work? The congress. When musk says he's defeating bureaucracy to allow democracy, he's got it exactly wrong. Congress made and funded the programs and agencies. They were elected by citizens to do so (democracy). Musk (unelected) is unilaterally taking the power he does not have and overriding what the people, through their elected representatives, created. That doesn't seem like democracy to me.

I've already said multiple times there is a way to do this that does preserve democracy and I'm all in on that. Clinton-Gore did it. But that takes effort and brains. This is simply destroying things then lying about it. It's stupid beyond fathom, unless you simply wish to destroy it forever and then this makes sense.

 

[WyattEarp]

He doesn't have to be an expert. Malcolm Gladwell is not an expert at anything but he knows how to translate things into more readily understandable form. However, Gladwell often goes too far on sharpening and leveling and gets it wrong at times.
Lewis does similar things, although he had worked on wall street thus knows how financial shit works from the inside. One of the things he reports are numbers of rural folks who think the government is bloated etc but are shocked to find out a lot of the stuff they depend on comes from government programs. Just like those people carrying signs that say "keep your government hands off my medicare!!"
The vast majority of Americans don't know what is going on inside of government because governmentcant advertise. The info is there, BTW, but nobody is taking the the time to find out and read their web pages etc. Thus the government is handicapped in that it cannot advertise about all the great stuff it is doing. It can only educate on a specific program to instruct people what to do but those releases have to be approved. Those who hate it can spend unlimited time and money trashing it however.
And who is the government? Americans. Who funds their work? The congress. When musk says he's defeating bureaucracy to allow democracy, he's got it exactly wrong. Congress made and funded the programs and agencies. They were elected by citizens to do so (democracy). Musk (unelected) is unilaterally taking the power he does not have and overriding what the people, through their elected representatives, created. That doesn't seem like democracy to me.

I've already said multiple times there is a way to do this that does preserve democracy and I'm all in on that. Clinton-Gore did it. But that takes effort and brains. This is simply destroying things then lying about it. It's stupid beyond fathom, unless you simply wish to destroy it forever and then this makes sense.

There's no way for a Trump Administration to enact slow, pedantic reforms. Unlike 1993, there will be no bipartisan support for such reforms. It's a pity but the Progressive and dominant wing of the Democratic party simply see any government spending as integral to expanding government. I think most rational people would think reform and efficiency can be leveraged to achieve government and societal objectives.

American businesses are adept at cutting here and adding there changing focus for changing circumstances. This is not something that the Washington behemoth is remotely capable of doing from within. I could bore the forum to tears discussing how many Federal agencies have overlapping functions. They also do not employ the latest technology to drive efficiencies. Most people realize the Federal redundancies are jobs programs. What many of the jobs actually do and perform is questionable.

As I said, I don't have to like Trump and Musk to understand and give them some time to cut through layers and decades of bureaucracy.

Here's a sincere question. Canadian Federal appointment expanded 43% to date under Trudeau. Let's use 15% population growth in that same period as a benchmark. Where in your words is the value added by this growth in Canadian Federal employment?

Of course, I think most of these Federal employees do a good job and strive to provide a valuable service for Canadians. Without getting into whether they are effectively organized, what about the tremendous growth in their ranks? What does it represent in terms of national value? Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that excessive government employment leads directly to lagging productivity. Productivity is a lynch-pin of expanding national wealth. Without national wealth, a government can't do all the great things things that people expect of it.

 

[kherg007]

There's no way for a Trump Administration to enact slow, pedantic reforms. Unlike 1993, there will be no bipartisan support for such reforms. It's a pity but the Progressive and dominant wing of the Democratic party simply see any government spending as integral to expanding government. I think most rational people would think reform and efficiency can be leveraged to achieve government and societal objectives.

American businesses are adept at cutting here and adding there changing focus for changing circumstances. This is not something that the Washington behemoth is remotely capable of doing from within. I could bore the forum to tears discussing how many Federal agencies have overlapping functions. They also do not employ the latest technology to drive efficiencies. Most people realize the Federal redundancies are jobs programs. What many of the jobs actually do and perform is questionable.

As I said, I don't have to like Trump and Musk to understand and give them some time to cut through layers and decades of bureaucracy.

Here's a sincere question. Canadian Federal appointment expanded 43% to date under Trudeau. Let's use 15% population growth in that same period as a benchmark. Where in your words is the value added by this growth in Canadian Federal employment?

Of course, I think most of these Federal employees do a good job and strive to provide a valuable service for Canadians. Without getting into whether they are effectively organized, what about the tremendous growth in their ranks? What does it represent in terms of national value? Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that excessive government employment leads directly to lagging productivity. Productivity is a lynch-pin of expanding national wealth. Without national wealth, a government can't do all the great things things that people expect of it.

I've never talked about Canada. I don't know anything about Canada except it's LE, Intel, military, and awesome women, particularly the ebony ladies.
Lets go back to the assumption about size of government out of control. It may be true for Canada. But let's look at the USA where other folks blather on about the size. It is beyond clear that is bullshit. In fact, the USA size of government employees has not changed much since the Clinton cuts. Let's look at the data:
There were 3 million USA government employees in December of 2024. (From US bureau of labor statistics lok it up).

All Employees, Federal

Graph and download economic data for All Employees, Federal (CES9091000001) from Jan 1939 to Jan 2025 about establishment survey, federal, government, employment, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

There were 2.9m in January 2021.
There were 2.8m in January 2017.
There were 2.8m in january 2013.
There were 2.8 m in january 2009.
There were 2.75 in january 2001.
There were 2.9m January 1997.
There were 3.08m in January 1993.
There were 3.15m in January 1989.
There were 2.96m in January 1985.
There were 2.96m January 1981.
Population
In 1980 the USA population was 226m. In 2024 it was 345m. Thus the population rose by 50% from 1980 to 2024.
The number of government employees rose 1.3%.
This is extraordinary. This seems to be something that looks more efficient. You would expect the number to rise in relation to the population. It did not. So the basic assumption made by the Maga folks is dead wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Democrat are crooks!

Why are there $1 billion in new Musk contracts while he cuts $1 trillion from services?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892254801892614428

 

[WyattEarp]

I've never talked about Canada. I don't know anything about Canada except it's LE, Intel, military, and awesome women, particularly the ebony ladies.
Lets go back to the assumption about size of government out of control. It may be true for Canada. But let's look at the USA where other folks blather on about the size. It is beyond clear that is bullshit. In fact, the USA size of government employees has not changed much since the Clinton cuts. Let's look at the data:
There were 3 million USA government employees in December of 2024. (From US bureau of labor statistics lok it up).

All Employees, Federal

Graph and download economic data for All Employees, Federal (CES9091000001) from Jan 1939 to Jan 2025 about establishment survey, federal, government, employment, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

There were 2.9m in January 2021.
There were 2.8m in January 2017.
There were 2.8m in january 2013.
There were 2.8 m in january 2009.
There were 2.75 in january 2001.
There were 2.9m January 1997.
There were 3.08m in January 1993.
There were 3.15m in January 1989.
There were 2.96m in January 1985.
There were 2.96m January 1981.
Population
In 1980 the USA population was 226m. In 2024 it was 345m. Thus the population rose by 50% from 1980 to 2024.
The number of government employees rose 1.3%.
This is extraordinary. This seems to be something that looks more efficient. You would expect the number to rise in relation to the population. It did not. So the basic assumption made by the Maga folks is dead wrong.

The U.S. Federal government has been on a fairly strict diet as far as headcount directly attributable to the Clinton exercise. The growth in spending has been with federal contractors, consultants and NGOs. Additionally, anyone who has worked in a big enterprise knows that technology has dramatically reduced the need for administrative staff. An office today doesn't look like anything like an office in 1981. So it's necessary to know the composition of the staffing not just pure numbers.

Let's just say American Progressives are smarter than Canadian Progressives. These pages now have a dearth of Trudeau supporters when only a few years ago I had people arguing in my face everything was great. I suspect a new face heading the Liberal party and they will be likely try to wash away the Trudeau years.

We could get into the U.S. government's massive amount of off-budget liabilities which are a way to commit spending today and tomorrow without recognizing the expenditures. For instance, a loan program can be a way to funnel money into a program even when there is no hope of repayment.

 

[WyattEarp]

I've never talked about Canada. I don't know anything about Canada except it's LE, Intel, military, and awesome women, particularly the ebony ladies.
Lets go back to the assumption about size of government out of control. It may be true for Canada. But let's look at the USA where other folks blather on about the size. It is beyond clear that is bullshit. In fact, the USA size of government employees has not changed much since the Clinton cuts. Let's look at the data:
There were 3 million USA government employees in December of 2024. (From US bureau of labor statistics lok it up).

All Employees, Federal

Graph and download economic data for All Employees, Federal (CES9091000001) from Jan 1939 to Jan 2025 about establishment survey, federal, government, employment, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

There were 2.9m in January 2021.
There were 2.8m in January 2017.
There were 2.8m in january 2013.
There were 2.8 m in january 2009.
There were 2.75 in january 2001.
There were 2.9m January 1997.
There were 3.08m in January 1993.
There were 3.15m in January 1989.
There were 2.96m in January 1985.
There were 2.96m January 1981.
Population
In 1980 the USA population was 226m. In 2024 it was 345m. Thus the population rose by 50% from 1980 to 2024.
The number of government employees rose 1.3%.
This is extraordinary. This seems to be something that looks more efficient. You would expect the number to rise in relation to the population. It did not. So the basic assumption made by the Maga folks is dead wrong.

More importantly from my earlier post, I believe Federal employment grew under Biden. So Trump/Musk should be able to retract that growth of they saw fit. That would seem reasonable on the surface. Crazy govt. number games with a growth in probationary employees, it could be a year or two where we see all the details of the Biden era hirings.

I also noticed the metro Washington D.C. area population doubled (100% increase) since 1981. Over the same period, Chicago grew 25% and Boston grew 33%. Total U.S. population growth was 46%. Everyone basically understands the Washington D.C. economy is predominantly driven by government spending and influence peddling.

Hmm, so why would the Washington area grow twice as fast as the country? It's not a warm climate. The area is very expensive. The state and local income taxes aren't low. I wonder what could be drawing so many folks to the Washington era. They can't all be hookers servicing Capitol Hill.

 

[Addict2sex]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892374128444772703

 

[Addict2sex]

Why are there $1 billion in new Musk contracts while he cuts $1 trillion from services?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892254801892614428

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892350062392439021

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892369577587151106

Retard fake news & lies from democrat politicians meanwhile she on the take.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892296080101986418

In 2021, the Biden Administration passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which included a provision to give $42.5 billion to the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program to provide under-served and rural areas with internet access. To date, it has connected nobody.

The plan required U.S. states and territories to submit plans for investment and deployment by the end of 2023, which all have done. Expected roll out won't occur until 2026 by most optimistic deadlines. It's better than nothing, right? Maybe not.

When you look at the timeline and trajectory of internet access across the United States, we begin to see the problem. In the years between 2021 and 2023 (when the BEAD funding was granted and the deadline for state roll out plan submissions) internet access grew from 80% to 83% for U.S. households. These gains largely came from new additions to areas that historically have not had access or where costs used to be prohibitive. With 13 million users added to networks in that timeframe, we can already see incredible movement in solving low access areas before a single dollar of the federal program has been used. By 2026, the additional investment private networks are making, as well as the flexibility in diverse types of network access, should increase internet access even more, just when the state and territory deployments are supposed to take effect.

When states use the federal subsidy to provide access in areas without internet, they no longer have incentives to confirm if the technology being deployed is appropriate for the area or if the customer base needs and wants what is being provided. Many rural areas that don't have internet access 0won't have a need for fiber cable (the priority of the BEAD funding).Private providers have been expanding where they can sustainably grow their market in ways that give the most appropriate options to the customer base - with emerging technologies like Starlink and other high-speed satellite options, locking into a multi-year government program that prioritizes one technology makes little sense. Oftentimes, the flexibility of a private provider means appropriate coverage for an area at a fraction of the cost of a government plan.

Long-term investments take time, but that doesn't mean every long-term investment makes sense. Government subsidies can come in with admirable goals, but still fail to be executed efficiently or properly. Unseen opportunity costs can be eaten up when we run to government programs first. Even as the state plans start taking effect, the private market will continue to expand internet coverage and lower prices at a faster rate than the BEAD program can, even to rural areas. With a total internet user addition of 0 people so far, the federal program has a long way to catch up.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892296679367328100

 

[Addict2sex]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892477769759494499

 

[Frankfooter]

More importantly from my earlier post, I believe Federal employment grew under Biden. So Trump/Musk should be able to retract that growth of they saw fit. That would seem reasonable on the surface. Crazy govt. number games with a growth in probationary employees, it could be a year or two where we see all the details of the Biden era hirings.

I also noticed the metro Washington D.C. area population doubled (100% increase) since 1981. Over the same period, Chicago grew 25% and Boston grew 33%. Total U.S. population growth was 46%. Everyone basically understands the Washington D.C. economy is predominantly driven by government spending and influence peddling.

Hmm, so why would the Washington area grow twice as fast as the country? It's not a warm climate. The area is very expensive. The state and local income taxes aren't low. I wonder what could be drawing so many folks to the Washington era. They can't all be hookers servicing Capitol Hill.

Do you really think the US will report job growth when trump is firing tens of thousands of workers and implementing tariffs that will put way more out of work?

 

[kherg007]

More importantly from my earlier post, I believe Federal employment grew under Biden. So Trump/Musk should be able to retract that growth of they saw fit. That would seem reasonable on the surface. Crazy govt. number games with a growth in probationary employees, it could be a year or two where we see all the details of the Biden era hirings.

I also noticed the metro Washington D.C. area population doubled (100% increase) since 1981. Over the same period, Chicago grew 25% and Boston grew 33%. Total U.S. population growth was 46%. Everyone basically understands the Washington D.C. economy is predominantly driven by government spending and influence peddling.

Hmm, so why would the Washington area grow twice as fast as the country? It's not a warm climate. The area is very expensive. The state and local income taxes aren't low. I wonder what could be drawing so many folks to the Washington era. They can't all be hookers servicing Capitol Hill.

BTW most of the government workers live in Maryland and northern Virginia because they can't afford to live in the safe areas of DC.

 

[versitile1]

How efficient is it to fire nuclear scientists and bird flu experts only to rush back to rehire them?

 

[bver_hunter]

I would expect the BRICs to significantly trade with each other. China still needs a lot of natural resources. Your India-China bilateral trade example is a good, somewhat healthy trade relationship. However, one would presume India doesn't want to only provide natural resources and will want to move up the value chain. That's when the trade competition and tension comes to the forefront.

China has bought up numerous mines and other natural resources all over Africa. In fact now trade between the African countries is three times that of USA and The African Nations. China just does not have to rely just on India. Guess where even the Canadian oil could be shipped from ports in BC once tariffs reduces these imports from Canada into the USA? Of course China!! India no longer has to rely on providing just natural resources. They have other competitive industries such as that of Pharmaceuticals, Textiles, Electronics, Jewelry, Automobile parts, Agricultural and Leather goods. They are contented to export as much as they import and yes, they have one of the fastest GDP growth rates, closer to 8% though it is forecasted to slow. just like all the major economies due to the expected US tariffs!!

The first major issue with all this BRICs fanfare (which you continually ignore) is who will absorb China's massive trade surplus that persists with the U.S? It's the biggest issue in any discussion of global trade. It is also key to the question of replacing dollar hegemony.

You falsely think that these tariffs will hit China harder than the USA, as it will be a tit for tat. But you should not ignore the fact that a sizeable number of the USA middle and lower income Americans depend on the cheap Chinese imports to sustain their livelihoods. These tariffs are bound to hurt their pocket books harder than the Chinese who will expand their trade with the other BRICS nations, as well as the developing Nations. Remember that the infrastructures in numerous African nations are being constructed at record pace by China.

The second major issue is the U.S. cannot afford to run enormous deficits year after year with China which is essentially an adversary. Germany and other chronic trade surplus countries are also creating imbalances and strain.This is both an economic and strategic issue. Cheap goods are just not a good enough argument for the U.S. and global stability in the long-run. The status quo is unsustainable.

In the past the USA has benefited from cheap Chinese imports, and goods manufactured in China. Otherwise, why would several US Companies have invested in China over the years? These USA Corporations had huge sales in China that has been declining over the years due to the Chinese not only catching up with their Research and Technologies but even surpassing the USA in several sectors. That is the root cause as China depends less and less on USA produced goods over the years. I know of some Corporations that are hurting so badly now that their sales are declining in not only China but all the Asian markets as their goods are being replaced by cheaper Chinese and other locally manufactured items. Hence tariffs are NOT THE SOLUTION, as it will once again hurt the Middle and Lower Income Americans who shall be the ones paying for them. The only ones benefitting will be the highest and elitist income earners due to the tax cuts that are intended for these tariffs!!

Now I suspect with all your very specific data included in your post, it's very likely you rearranged some things you cut and pasted from an article or two. The problem as I always have told you is that journalists aren't economists and they usually aren't strong with financial principles. However, they do want to write political commentary.

Wyatt once again pure assumptions from your end, that s related to cut and paste. Maybe that's where most of your posts are constructed!! The Far Right media will support anything that Trump says, even in their heart of hearts he is taking them to the very edge of a steep cliff, with these needless tariffs, especially when mentioning about 25 - 100% tariffs!!
The MSM have the real economists being interviewed, who have the expertise in this field including their Research through the top Universities, that is contrary to your beliefs!!

Really Beav, did you just figure out I am partisan? Do you realize the shit you read about economics is thinly-veiled opposition to Trump the political entity? Don't you think some of what you read is indirectly sponsored by industry groups and political groups that have special interests?
For myself, I understood all the policies that Trump has made his agenda long, long before Trump came along. So why would I throw them out simply because Trump's not a terribly amicable politician.

No one is saying that there will instantaneous benefits to the U.S. It's been acknowledged that it would be a five year adjustment period. One of the more subtle messages the Trump Administration is sending out is that manufacturers who send manufacturing abroad can't expect the U.S. govt. to be their strong ally in dealing with unfair and intrusive foreign governments. That seems fair doesn't it. You take the risk, you accept the risk.

Wyatt, I know what I read and believe is not the "shit" in your fairy tale book. Do you think that generally the Republicans that to this day opposes Trump's policies and have spoken against it is supposed to be because they do not comprehend your POVs? They have the balls to oppose him as they are deeply concerned for the welfare of their Nation. When someone like Trump pulls out of his ass certain crap like Canada is due to be the 51st State, Greenland is up for sale, and the USA will take over The Panama Canal as they "financed" it, then I am supposed to buy it? Tell us if you think that the USA is "subsidizing" Canada to the tune of $200 Billion like he claims? All I can say to you is Canada is Already GREAT. One day when Trump makes America "Great Again" then: ROTFLMAO!!

 

[Frankfooter]

How efficient is it to fire nuclear scientists and bird flu experts only to rush back to rehire them?

CDC is cancelling flu vaccinations in a year with the biggest flu outbreaks in a long time. MAGA hate science and medicine.

National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD)

Homepage for NCIRD

www.cdc.gov

 

[WyattEarp]

China has bought up numerous mines and other natural resources all over Africa. In fact now trade between the African countries is three times that of USA and The African Nations. China just does not have to rely just on India. Guess where even the Canadian oil could be shipped from ports in BC once tariffs reduces these imports from Canada into the USA? Of course China!! India no longer has to rely on providing just natural resources. They have other competitive industries such as that of Pharmaceuticals, Textiles, Electronics, Jewelry, Automobile parts, Agricultural and Leather goods. They are contented to export as much as they import and yes, they have one of the fastest GDP growth rates, closer to 8% though it is forecasted to slow. just like all the major economies due to the expected US tariffs!!



You falsely think that these tariffs will hit China harder than the USA, as it will be a tit for tat. But you should not ignore the fact that a sizeable number of the USA middle and lower income Americans depend on the cheap Chinese imports to sustain their livelihoods. These tariffs are bound to hurt their pocket books harder than the Chinese who will expand their trade with the other BRICS nations, as well as the developing Nations. Remember that the infrastructures in numerous African nations are being constructed at record pace by China.



In the past the USA has benefited from cheap Chinese imports, and goods manufactured in China. Otherwise, why would several US Companies have invested in China over the years? These USA Corporations had huge sales in China that has been declining over the years due to the Chinese not only catching up with their Research and Technologies but even surpassing the USA in several sectors. That is the root cause as China depends less and less on USA produced goods over the years. I know of some Corporations that are hurting so badly now that their sales are declining in not only China but all the Asian markets as their goods are being replaced by cheaper Chinese and other locally manufactured items. Hence tariffs are NOT THE SOLUTION, as it will once again hurt the Middle and Lower Income Americans who shall be the ones paying for them. The only ones benefitting will be the highest and elitist income earners due to the tax cuts that are intended for these tariffs!!



Wyatt once again pure assumptions from your end, that s related to cut and paste. Maybe that's where most of your posts are constructed!! The Far Right media will support anything that Trump says, even in their heart of hearts he is taking them to the very edge of a steep cliff, with these needless tariffs, especially when mentioning about 25 - 100% tariffs!!
The MSM have the real economists being interviewed, who have the expertise in this field including their Research through the top Universities, that is contrary to your beliefs!!



Wyatt, I know what I read and believe is not the "shit" in your fairy tale book. Do you think that generally the Republicans that to this day opposes Trump's policies and have spoken against it is supposed to be because they do not comprehend your POVs? They have the balls to oppose him as they are deeply concerned for the welfare of their Nation. When someone like Trump pulls out of his ass certain crap like Canada is due to be the 51st State, Greenland is up for sale, and the USA will take over The Panama Canal as they "financed" it, then I am supposed to buy it? Tell us if you think that the USA is "subsidizing" Canada to the tune of $200 Billion like he claims? All I can say to you is Canada is Already GREAT. One day when Trump makes America "Great Again" then: ROTFLMAO!!

Let's dog ear this page and come back to it in two years. I don't think the BRICs phenomenon is that much of a phenomenon.

I think anyone who digs beyond your cursory narrative realizes China has a need for many resources beyond their border including oil. China is also vastly overbuilt in real estate and manufacturing capacity as Beijing and the provinces encourage more building to pump up GDP.

Your thesis that Chinese trade benefits low income American consumers makes no sense if you turn it upside down. Why do the Chinese covet these manufacturing sectors? These are industries that employ low-skilled workers. That's what the U.S. hopes to do with more balanced trade. Europe is throwing up barriers to Chinese trade as well. It's not just some U.S. thing.

By the way, who told you that China's huge trade surplus is a sign of tremendous strength? It's a double-edged sword when you don't have enough domestic demand to employ your population. It's a result of Beijing leaning on policies that subsidizes export production and investment while suppressing wages and consumption. Tight capital controls are a product of this system and are not a sign of strength. These policies have a name and they are called mercantilism. China requires a large amount of foreign demand to run its economy and that foreign demand is not coming from the BRICs countries.

The Shanghai stock index peaked in 2007. It is 45% lower today and has been mostly been flatlining since that time. You don't have to worry. There likely won't be a crash. Beijing will choose to manage a slow burn similar to Japan's lost decades. This is a familiar pattern for countries that have experienced an economic boom from mercantilist policies. I'm not making this up. Do a search.

Remember you were declaring the demise of the U.K. economy last year because of your bias against Brexit. Look at where Germany and France are today. German elections Sunday will likely show you the German electorate's dissatisfaction with two terrible economic years and immigration policy.

Beaver, you have to take into account all the facts and all the information. Don't dig into an answer and hold it dear. The world is vastly complicated and most journalistic sources also have a bias.