This stream then has to be able to feed its roots and also retain and obtain enough rain to survive. This is usually done by looking for intra-state or country value. As such the clouds have to be able to flow freely from country to country with fair competition. This then stops such things as inter flooding like inflation or things like intra flooding like dumping.
Inter flooding has been explained in previous posts. As such it is basically inflation, which can cause serious damage to a countries economics
Intra flooding is basically what China has done with their dumping tactics. It is when a country basically builds up huge amounts of products and sells them under the value at which other countries at same scale of economy can sell them and Yes Mr Hue, your country is of scale. As such this then allows much like stated in another brain storm I believe. For flooding, which causes both inter and intra problems.
This is basically caused because one country is allowing itself to lose its roots and then basically have more clouds than roots. This means, that one countries is basically loosing it roots. That means it is allowing itself to be derooted from its own value. Which in turn causes it to also receive such detriments as flooding in forms of high inflation. This is because basically the country has lost its tax liquidity because the value of its roots have been lost. This means, in less natural economics talks. That one country has to inflate its own economy because another country is dumping on it and also relieving it from all of its roots.
This then gets to my new theory to me maybe not to old schoolers like my coaches, watchers, or wizards of the books. However, to me the idea as applied through stick person theory, as I have not found a treatise on the matter is new to me.
After one economy has lost its roots (51% or higher of cloud economics which create little value in the international market place) then it is forced to deal with another countries cloud economics as their roots allow for more cloud production as places where their are more trees, (manufacturing plants, bad analogy I know ma, however, on my other blog we have fond ways to completely stop carbon monoxide from manufacturing plants by creating underground algae filters which then turn the carbon produced by the manufacturing plant into energy that then again powers the plant, so ma HA. special invite you hounds of the Economic Warfare Institute, a human starts talking logical about how much longer humans have to live and some folks get a Little crazy and hurt others which is bad, so very narrowed cite.) This then causes a natural flood because the other country needs the rain and thinks that by allowing more rain it will somehow grow more trees. (cheap products will somehow create more value for a country being dumped on, for the non naturalists types who don't understand natural law or natural economics). This then creates a flood zone. In which becomes flooded heavily over the cycles of nature (the business cycle).
Therefore, the creator of the flooding creates natural mounts or reserves or natural protectants. Much like we see in sand dunes, sand bars or that kind of thing. This would then be correlated much to the Chinese blitzing period. Were they find that they need to go out and create protectants from the very flood they are creating. Like we saw after the .com business cycle and the mortgage business cycle. .com was the naval ports that our Leader had to sell off so as to balance the budget along with a substantial of other ports that had to be sold off to the creator of the flood. Then after the mortgage business cycle, we are now seeing such things as other flooded countries like Greece that are seeing the same strategy to act like they will create a protectant form the flooding but really all they are doing is propping them up. Along with that we are now seeing specific propping strategies in countries by the Chinese government through SOE's. These consist of economic infrastructures like steel, communications, food (as we have had farmers aid for 25 years now, you go kick some butt Willy you tell them, wonder Williers if that has had anything to do with an unfair farming market check out COFCO and a possible monopoly on a certain staple Willy old boy, keep making me and my future lady fall in love Sir.) transportation like trains, and other areas that the US used to have a natural balance in.
This then allows for a full prop system. Much like the stick man theory my old wizards (coaches). Fo those who don't know the stick man theory here is what the Chinese are doing to hold onto comparative advantage so they can aquire an absolute advantage through their SOE cartels, Propping:
"1.Person A(US) has position X (the US believes they are being attacked by manipulated economics).
2.Person B(China) disregards certain key points of X[idea of loss of welfare, loss of liquidity at back end of the business cycle, loss of taxes, strategic acquisition of economics by the Chinese government in the US economy] and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y [you are getting cheaper goods and thus there is no way you can't be benefiting from our comparative advantaged trade]. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X[which is the distorted detriments of the absolute advantage] and can be set up in several ways, including:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted. [The US really means that it is not using enough SOE's in their own economy and such needs to use more, or the loss of things are really the US's fault do to lack of regulation in their financial industries. As such China is helping the US by actually lending them more money and then in turn keeping their economy going or China is allowing more imports as such we should not take them under scrutiny (when in actuality their exports grow at a higher rate than they allow their imports to grow, out side of their acquisition period in which we are now, this can easily be tested by waiting till the Us starts up its next service industry and then calculating Chinese imports growth versus exports growth
). This then gives the presumption that the detriments to the US are actually its own fault and not that of its SOE cartel using trade partner]
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context – i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining). [The US will not trade with our country because it will not allow an SOE to purchase their economic infrastructure thus acting like following the US core values of free enterprise is a bad thing by not allowing an SOE Cartel member to purchase a core economic infrastructure. When in actuality it is that the US does not want to allow a manipulated subsidized government owned company into its free enterprise economics, as it will cause a huge detriment to the US, via future unfair uncompetitive markets domestically as we are seeing internationally]
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments – thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated. [basically the economic idea that if you don't believe in comparative advantage to the point of absolute advantage you are not an economist and you don't know what you are talking about]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. [causing a group that does not believe in comparative advantage to seem like they are the ones who will cause detrements to the market place and that they are not popular and stop them from entering their ideas into the main stream through corporations]
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. [making it again seem like comparative advantage is easy to believe and that it is over whelming true to the point of absolute advantage allowance (unlike Senator Sherman's wishes which were perpetuate against the Capitalist stick figure propers of old, as now they are the Communist stick figure propers of new]
3.Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position. [by saying that we are manipulating our economy you are saying that by China upholding it own interests is wrong, this is not possible as China will always think about itself first, as is natural and by you saying such things you are causing a detriment and you should not see through such things]"
This manipulation of economics is then easily distorted and created to look like it is the US's fault. As it is only natural for a country to do this to another country, that anyone who does not believe in comparative advantage to the point of absolute advantage is not valid, then trying to use opposing theories by miss quoting the context and application and then attacking the weakened version, much like saying that you are saying that China should raise its currency. However, we don't believe we should have to to the point of equalization to our production because of economic sovereignty issues. When in reality they are forcing other countries to become satellites of their economy. Instead of using US dollars that represent free trade, anti-trust doctrine and anti-cartel activities, China wishes to implement cartel activities as a norm and use dumping strategies to cause international clout through exploitation and manipulation.
Therefore, China is easily able to prop up our economies and create a real stick man economy by using basic stick man theorized logic. This causes a weakened theorized defense against the stick man economy approach. Which creates such fallacious economic principles as the idea of allowing a foreign country to stimulate a country that they inherently tore down through their blitzing strategy and long term business cycle exploitation. As such what would be the difference of the US government purchasing a steel company or a Chinese Government purchasing our free enterprise steel company?
The detriments to this none realistic style logic is basically that the US will start to have each of its industries propped up by the Chinese SOE's ports, steel, financing, real estate and on down the line. As such this will cause two major detriments. One as stated before is uncompetitive market places in the future where China keeps its economic warfare strategies at such high capacity that no one will oppose their imperialism. Or that the US will have to use massive size SOE's like China does to even compete with them. This then takes away from free Enterprise and natural economics and in the long run leads to war and outbreaks of high poverty areas through centralized SOE style economics instead of spread out stream style free enterprise economics. As such this could lead to the Soviet Russian and Chinese along with other hard Communist countries predictions that the US will fall into decay through uprisings do to unemployment. This all basically caused by the allowance of the Chinese Communist Parties State Owned Enterprises to start purchasing strategic economic warfare points much like a campaigning army would attack strategic towns and cities to acquire control of a country of old tactics.
Barn time. Honey I will be once the Mustang has gone to bed and the rifle and six shooter are properly stored so the little un's can't go target shooting each other. Darn hoarse likes it when I read to it. Funniest thing though. Sleeps like a baby after a long ride and a good story reading.