South China Sea

[babe]

Another drunk post that didn't come across as intended. It wasn't meant in an offensive way PeeK.



Based on your POV I suppose. Of course both the leaders of both nations have drilled down strategy-counter strategy to the same consise point. I could troll this with a sarcastic comment on being worried dead cold about America having to make our own t-shirts and pencils again, but I think you get the point. If China actually has an advantage here then you're going to have to outline what it is to persuade me.

Also, there's always the "hot money" flow issues China would have to deal with.

Franklin, at some point of development, most nations with large land mass, abundant resources, and eager laborers will find their own use for their own stuff. Largely speaking, the junk they make to sell to Americans at Walmart in the USA could be called a waste of their resources and talents.

In mega-bank rhetoric, once they set up some factories that can produce useful things of long-lasting value, the American dollars we fondly imagine they'll ship back to us at depreciated values can just as well be replaced by fiat currency of their own printing, and their people can keep rolling outta bed and going to work just the same, and make use of their own stuff.

I have a very smart sister in law who grew up in China. It's interesting to hear how things are over there from her. I also have a pretty smart nephew who is there working for a Chinese supercorp, but he can't be bothered to talk to me. I have to distill what he says from my sister, who can't be counted on to understand what she's been told.

Tell you what, instead of just doing my usual smartass imitation, I'll check out things the best I can, and try to give you a better response in few days.

 

[babe]

screw the south china sea.

At some point in time we'll have to learn to leave our mitts off other countries and make arrangements that are mutally beneficial with other countries all around the world.
"Alliance with none, commerce with all" will one day be our humble plea. . . . . If we can defend "our" territory. . . .

Japan learned its lesson pretty quick about trying to manage Asia, but only because we were in the fight. Basically, even China will find it untenable to impose "management" over the peripheral territories of Southeast Asia, as well as Japan. Because the military costs will escalate to the point of diminishing returns, and it will have it's manpower depleted by doing so. I mean "reliable" manpower that will not take advantage of personal opportunities to enhance life at the expense of the "State". Bribes are pretty much the way of life in Asia, and the chief impediment to top-down rule.

No "corrupt" government can really be "strong".

 

[franklin]

This is an excellent, concise, rationale for western arrogance, mediated by "our" institutions like banks or the UN. From an oriental or more particularly Chinese view, however, it looks like vulnerability.

In mega-bank rhetoric, once they set up some factories that can produce useful things of long-lasting value, the American dollars we fondly imagine they'll ship back to us at depreciated values can just as well be replaced by fiat currency of their own printing, and their people can keep rolling outta bed and going to work just the same, and make use of their own stuff.

The thing I don't get is a quickness to laud central planning communists for attacking a vulnerability while dismissing our own way of life as entirely egotistical. Aren't the central planners the ones who are supposed to have the weaker system?

The shortcoming of communists is they can't create a vibrant economy without losing control so the build export-oriented models in order to mask their faults. The Russians did this with their grain crops and weaponry, and their people starved. The Chinese people are starving from their export-oriented system. America found out the pitfalls of relying on the consumption of others much more severely than Europe after 1929. Japan had a similar learning experience when things ended badly with the Plaza Accords. Export nations are dependent on outside forces and these economies can either adjust or they can implode. It is not a sign of strength.

If it were as easy for China to do what you suggest -- simply print their own self-sustaining fiat -- and retain communistic control over their economy then they would. However, their banking system is highly corrupt and designed to pay off the local CP leaders with bad loans that are paid for by destroying the savings of their citizens. Their banks are highly suspect of being insolvent and this wouldn't be the first time they were forced to use foreign reserves to shore up these corrupt banks (see Asian Currency Crisis).

In order to reverse this chronic condition they have to stop robbing their citizens of purchasing power and turn control over to the people in a democratic fashion. When they do that we win. Their options are to implode or create a more sustainable economy. That's why they are finally focusing on consumption over production, or at least giving lip service to it. They've seen the end game and know they'll have to change their ways or get put right back into that place the Brits left them.

Murricah **** Yeah!

 

[babe]

The thing I don't get is a quickness to laud central planning communists for attacking a vulnerability while dismissing our own way of life as entirely egotistical. Aren't the central planners the ones who are supposed to have the weaker system?

The shortcoming of communists is they can't create a vibrant economy without losing control so the build export-oriented models in order to mask their faults. The Russians did this with their grain crops and weaponry, and their people starved. The Chinese people are starving from their export-oriented system. America found out the pitfalls of relying on the consumption of others much more severely than Europe after 1929. Japan had a similar learning experience when things ended badly with the Plaza Accords. Export nations are dependent on outside forces and these economies can either adjust or they can implode. It is not a sign of strength.

If it were as easy for China to do what you suggest -- simply print their own self-sustaining fiat -- and retain communistic control over their economy then they would. However, their banking system is highly corrupt and designed to pay off the local CP leaders with bad loans that are paid for by destroying the savings of their citizens. Their banks are highly suspect of being insolvent and this wouldn't be the first time they were forced to use foreign reserves to shore up these corrupt banks (see Asian Currency Crisis).

In order to reverse this chronic condition they have to stop robbing their citizens of purchasing power and turn control over to the people in a democratic fashion. When they do that we win. Their options are to implode or create a more sustainable economy. That's why they are finally focusing on consumption over production, or at least giving lip service to it. They've seen the end game and know they'll have to change their ways or get put right back into that place the Brits left them.

Murricah **** Yeah!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to franklin again.

well, I guess I'll have to go through some other threads to "earn" the privilege to give you credit for this.

I guess my emphasis is on trying to crap on our own growing central planning penchant and tolerance for corruption. If we don't want to implode our own selves as a nation that can do some good in the world as well as manage our own selves. . . . we'll have to pass on the general world-wide "corruption" that is and will be the reason nobody else can do anything good for the world, either.