Kelso scribbled: Good points Builder. I agree that the Chinese will eventually want higher wages, in the same way that Nike sweatshops started in places like South Korea and Hong Kong and had to move as those countries acquired a higher standard of living. Eventually it will not make sense to keep the Yuan artificially low - the Chinese will not want to subsidize American consumers forever - and that is when **** hits the fan. I'm not claiming that the US will collapse like Rome. Your analogy to Britain's decline as a Superpower is probably more appropriate, although bear in mind that during Britain's decline it was a net investor abroad. Essentially, the adjusted real rate of return abroad was higher than in Britain which had a much lower demand for new capital. Because of Britain's domestic savings, however, they were able to capitalize on this. The relevant question, then, is the extend to which US power may decline in the coming years. Will they decline on the world stage like the UK did? On the one hand they are not saving enough, but on the other hand they have a very entrepreneurial culture and it could actually be that to some extent they are a net borrower because the highest risk-adjusted returns continue to be in the US. I agree that China has problems. In fact, I think they're highly overrated. I don't know much about their form of communism/capitalism, but I understand it is still highly beaurocratic. I don't think they have the underlying fundamentals to sustain growth consistently. However, I would not say that "eight times" growth itself is necessarily a bad thing. It is a part of economic development. As a country with a high ratio of labour to capital sees an influx of foreign investment and domestic savings this happens. I believe South Korea had extremely high growth; it is part of the path to economic equilibrium, where growth is say only 3% per year. I think over time, India may be a stronger competitor. They not only have the population and a culture that encourages education, but democracy and the common law.

Kelso scribbled: The balance of payments is an interesting angle. The Chinese government keeps the Yuan artificially low so that they can export more goods to the US than they import. As a result, the Chinese government holds a very large reserve of US currency. The US has military power, but the Chinese can also drastically effect the value of the dollar by shifting to another currency, say Euros. Essentially the US has a very low domestic savings rate, exacerbated by high government spending. Much of the money is then owed to nations like China. On the positive side, that interlocks the destiny of the two nations making cooperation more likely. Although it's hard to see how the US can continue to import cheap products from China forever, eventually the gig will be up. The US seems a bit like Rome at the end of it's dominance, where people became rich, fat and lazy. The public can't handle any form of prolonged war and the nation spends more than it produces. On the bright side, I think the US still retains a strong comparative advantage in innovation and entrpreneurialism(not routine tech stuff outsourced to India) and tax receipts have never been higher. However, most gains are no longer made by the middle class, which is likely a source of weakness and unrest for a democracy.

Kelso scribbled: They just bullshit with you about sports and travel. Most of the questions are like #6. Except it can actually be hard, because the lawyers are so socially inept it throws you off your game. Love the answers though. For a cynical/funny perspective on law, check out: www.philalawyer.net www.tuckermax.com

Kelso scribbled: Very true!

Kelso scribbled: I can't wait to go to the website and get more great tips like, "bath regularly". In fairness though, not a bad set of basics that we know but often overlook or forget.

Kelso scribbled: I skimmed through this. Looked reasonable until they get into technical analysis. That stuff is nonsense, and is consistently empirically disproven.

Kelso scribbled: I had the poster of Bushisms just after he was elected the first time and the only one left from that list is #10. I think there's a new Bushism every day. I wonder who's given us more material, Bush or Clinton? I think the material that comes from Bush favours the Daily Show, as compared to the lame Clinton jokes that fed Leno for years.

Kelso scribbled: It's a canonical list though, not a top 10.