Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Should US Deal with China Long-term?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by lakechampainer View Post
    Well, I guess where you stand depends on where you sit. It sure as hell matters to me that the US manufacturing base has been decimated. Actually, that is not a good word to use, since a lot more than one-tenth of it has vanished.
    Actually I misstated my post. What I meant to say was, it doesn't matter if the decimation was caused by china or other countries, its the cost of labor and market forces that determine the movements.

    Sorry to hear that you're affected by the economic downturn, but the fact remains (as Doc's post more adequately shows) that China has nothing to do with it.
    "We have no white flag."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by GMan88 View Post
      Wow. Excellent data!
      Don't encourage him!

      He's got mountains of that stuff!.....


      Philip
      "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."— Bertrand Russell

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        I was wondering the same thing... I would no more want to contain the Chinese economy than I would want to contain Wal-Mart's, ExxonMobil's, Microsoft's or Coca Cola's economies.
        But I wasn't talking about containing their economy.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Imperial View Post
          But I wasn't talking about containing their economy.
          Same thing in the end. It always comes down to money. It is not a matter of containment anyway. The Chinese will power project into their side of the Pacific, thats a given basically in the same way that the Americans power project into their side of the Pacific (and further frankly). So this shouldn't be a suprise to anyone really.
          The point is are the Chinese looking to be beligerent and my answer is unless they have some kind of nationalist government come into power why would they? Im pretty sure they'll push their neighbours around economically and to be honest they already are, including in Africa ( not that the rabid anti western types ever whine about that) but WW2 Japanese style? What would be the point, why kill and destroy your best markets.
          To be frank, I think the biggest threat to creating a beligerent China is ourselves by getting all overly spooked and saying they've got this ship or that ship etc and going overboard. I've used this phrase before but I think it very pertinent. We will create our own self fulfilling prophecy. Lets not kid ourselves either, there has been a precedent of this sort before. Men like Curtis Le May believed that WW3 with the Soviets was a matter of when not if and it can be argued cranked the handle much harder than it needed to be. 13 days in 1962 nearly was his self fulfilled prophecy. In the end reason and peace won out. Lets not get it wrong this time.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Imperial View Post
            But I wasn't talking about containing their economy.
            Are they bothering anyone else militarily and/or politically?
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #36
              Why "contain" and perform covert actions against China?

              1. We should follow the military maxim of prepare for what a potential opponent can do, not what he says he will do or what you think he will do.

              2. Countries which right now could obliterate the US in a nuclear strike: Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom for sure. I'm willing to take my chances with the UK and France, but I would hope we keep close watch on their procedures, methods, personnel, etc. even though not performing covert action. I would also keep a close eye, as quite sure we do, on India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.

              Should we not concern ourselves with China - is there much difference between 200 million dead Americans from a Russian strike and 100 million dead Americans from a Chinese strike?


              3. Do you not think China is engaging in offensive/covert/espionage/surveillance/reconnaissance activities against us? Should we not counter that? Is not the best defense a good offense?

              The choices I selected in the poll did not include aggressively flying against their air space, or simulated intercepts of their reconnaissance satellites, etc. but challenging them economically and playing "carrot and stick."


              Link for USA today article on Chinese espionage:
              http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...spionage_x.htm

              Below is a link to the Wikipedia article on the Cox Report, which investigated Chinese nuclear espionage against the US in the 1980s and 1990s.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Report

              Below is a link to the Wikipedia article on Chinese Intelligence Operations in the US

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese..._United_States
              Last edited by lakechampainer; 05 Apr 11, 10:08.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                I was wondering the same thing... I would no more want to contain the Chinese economy than I would want to contain Wal-Mart's, ExxonMobil's, Microsoft's or Coca Cola's economies.
                Yeah, I think people seem to fear some Chinese bogey-man as if we are entering another Cold War. If the USSR and USA had been as economically integrated as the USA and China are today, the Cold War would never have happened.

                Or at least it wouldn't have happened to the same degree it did. It would have been more of a "Cold Competition" than anything.

                Comment


                • #38
                  The point is are the Chinese looking to be beligerent and my answer is unless they have some kind of nationalist government come into power why would they?
                  Copenhagen, a government doesn't have to be 'nationalist' to propagate ultra-nationalist views of history. You might look at some of the posters who show up on the "Peking Duck" blog site.

                  For all: The idea of 'containing' China went out with the era of "The Sand Pebbles" (excellent novel and movie, by the way). All the U.S. has to do is deal with China as they would with any other major world power, which includes standing up to them on occasion.

                  But, China's rise does afford us the opportunity to re-look our strategy for Asia, and that includes a re-look at military presence and basing. The Reunification of Korea will end our presence there, not because of Chinese pressure, but because of a Korean re-look of their own military needs coupled with the political pressures common to democracies. Likewise, notwithstanding our treaty with the R.O.C., any action we take in regards to Taiwan must be coldly evaluated in light of American interests in the world. A simple: "We signed a treaty and must therefore honor it no matter what the costs" will never serve to justify a war to the American voters. There has to be more at stake than "American prestige".
                  Last edited by lirelou; 05 Apr 11, 11:45.
                  dit: Lirelou

                  Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá ǵ!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    IMO China 'does not do more to integrate North Korea' because there is nothing in it for them. Any political change in the DPRK poses some risk of destabilization which might spill over into China. The Beijing prefers risks it can predict and control.
                    Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

                    Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Separately - http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html


                      However I view the rise of China's manufacturing base as a result of changes in the US manufacturing sector, not as a cause of those changes.

                      Cumbersome and anticompetitive regulations in the US, an irrational healthcare market, frivolous litigation, erratic tax policies, unresponsive management, and corrupt unions all aided by a self-serving legislature account for much of the loss. China is just the beneficiary.
                      Last edited by GCoyote; 05 Apr 11, 13:18.
                      Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

                      Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Bring manufacturing back to the U.S.!

                        The Republicans will never agree!
                        "They are not missing they are here" General Plumer at the inauguration of the Menin gate in Ypres

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by GCoyote View Post
                          IMO China 'does not do more to integrate North Korea' because there is nothing in it for them. Any political change in the DPRK poses some risk of destabilization which might spill over into China. The Beijing prefers risks it can predict and control.
                          This is probably why China is building a 1,416km double wall on the China-North Korea border.

                          Perhaps China is aware that unification of Korea is inevitable and are preparing for the worst.
                          "Stand for the flag ~ Kneel for the fallen"

                          "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." ~ Bruce Lee

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by GCoyote View Post
                            Separately - http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html


                            However I view the rise of China's manufacturing base as a result of changes in the US manufacturing sector, not as a cause of those changes.

                            Cumbersome and anticompetitive regulations in the US, an irrational healthcare market, frivolous litigation, erratic tax policies, unresponsive management, and corrupt unions all aided by a self-serving legislature account for much of the loss. China is just the beneficiary.
                            The number of people employed in manufacturing has decreaed, while the value of what they manufacture has increased...



                            What happens when you increase the value of what you produce while decreasing the number of people producing it?

                            You get increasing productivity...



                            If Red China is in any way responsible for the near-tripling of our manufacturing productivity since 1975, we should "deal with China" by saying "谢谢!"
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by sirabe View Post
                              Bring manufacturing back to the U.S.!

                              The Republicans will never agree!
                              That's because Republicans are smart enough to realize that our manufacturing output, capacity and productivity are at or near record high levels.

                              So... There's nothing to "bring back." We've outsourced low-end manufacturing to cheaper labor markets; while increasing the high-end manufacturing...
                              China tops US in manufacturing

                              The West Australian
                              March 15, 2011

                              China topped the United States as the world's largest manufacturer for the first time last year, according to a study by economic research firm IHS Global Insight.

                              China accounted for 19.8 per cent of global manufacturing in 2010, compared with 19.4 per cent for the US - $US1.995 trillion worth, compared with $US1.952 trillion, according to IHS.

                              But by measures of productivity, China remained far behind the United States, with US manufacturing workers generating more than eight times the value per person than China's.

                              "In other words, the US manufacturing sector is producing roughly the same amount of output in 2010 with 11.5 million workers as opposed to its Chinese counterpart with around 100 million workers," IHS said.


                              [...]

                              LINK
                              Last edited by The Doctor; 05 Apr 11, 14:55.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                They dont help to re-integrate North Korea because I doubt they want politically a US ally on any of its borders and its a bargaining chip in their relations with the west. That's my hunch anyway.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X