Don't need to look, although you have done as you just did. So the answer is definitely still, "Yes. You most certainly do. "
No I don't.
Yes, you do. And you repeated it right here.
So go... "Tell it to the experts such as Mr. Tkacik. "
I'd rather tell it to you.
Only because you don't have an argument. As I said before:
"His bang for the buck analysis is straightforward. "
If rent in China is 10% of that in America, that doesn't make the $10 million missile they build suddenly worth $100 million. That doesn't make the $1 billion arms purchase from Russia suddenly worth $10 billion.
Not the arms purchase from outside China, no. But the INTERNAL MANUFACTURING? Yes, it most definitely is impacted by that huge price differential. And they are manufacturing large numbers of tanks, artillery, planes, ships, submarines, missiles, rockets, mobile infantry equipment, etc. All on the Q.T.
So, if the price of labor as well as rent is only 10% of that in the U.S., you have the burden of disproving that their internal manufactures/deployments are not substantially more "bang for the buck" significance than those budgets published (purely for duping the Western policy-makers) are meant to imply.
You are the one who is always touting China as the produceer of things "better and cheaper."
I dare you to produce an instance where I touted any such thing.
Good grief. That was just last week. And I challenged you to defend your specious claim, where you assert that they make things "better and cheaper". As the Duke University study concluded, it really comes down to CHEAPER. Period. But you always stick that "better" in conjuction with your real agenda...the "cheaper" importing.
You never replied. I dare you to.