Capitalism, but only for ourselves - says US

[Stapel]

China being a rising power and therefore a potential (future) rival to America.

Economy knows no regional rivalry. It only knows competition and new opportunities in new markets.

Economy is not a pie to be divide between the EU, the US and China. It's a large pie, that keeps on growing!

 

[Rambuchan]

Economy knows no regional rivalry. It only knows competition and new opportunities in new markets.

Economy is not a pie to be divide between the EU, the US and China. It's a large pie, that keeps on growing!

Nice words but what are you saying exactly?

 

[Stapel]

Nice words but what are you saying exactly?

What I mean: The growth of the Chinese economy should not be feared! It will not take away pieces of our wealth! It will give us new opportunities! Both our wealth will increase, if we allow both our economies to compete with eachother. Preventing parties from the market is not a good idea!
It annoys me people think the growth of China is a threat........

All economically speaking of course. If matters of state security come in, things might be different

 

[stormbind]

There are several angles to the Chinese strategy, one of those is to acquire the advanced resources and skills that would allow it to perform better in Kyoto and energy trade (economic advantage). Chinese populations are also suffering ill-health as a result of air pollution and the same technology would inherently reduce the burden on public health-care (economic advantage).

DC is seeking exaggerated excuses to support it's weak political policies - again.

 

[eyrei]

I really think this has a lot less to do with economics and more to do with fear of Chinese military power. Until we have a peaceful world, free trade is going to usually take a back seat to matters of security.

 

[stormbind]

Consistency in free trade is the only policy that can lead to a peaceful world.

The distrust that comes from hypocrisy will destroy you.

 

[eyrei]

Consistency in free trade is the only policy that can lead to a peaceful world.

The distrust that comes from hypocrisy will destroy you.

I think that is debatable. Personally, I think that only completely transparent democracy is the only policy that will bring peace. Free trade has, as a negative effect, the propogation of the haves/have nots dichotomy. This will always create conflict.

The fear in the US government of China stems directly from it not being a democracy, which means that it would be much easier for it to become aggressive. I don't hold this view myself, but I think it is very apparent from the political rhetoric in recent years that this is the opinion of most politicians in the USA.

 

[FredLC]

The fear in the US government of China stems directly from it not being a democracy, which means that it would be much easier for it to become aggressive. I don't hold this view myself, but I think it is very apparent from the political rhetoric in recent years that this is the opinion of most politicians in the USA.

Well, believe it or not, such fear is not unjustified. Save for the War in Iraq, there have never been a war in the history of mankind that was started by a democracy. Looks like the world population actually do want peace after all.

Regards .

 

[Uiler]

Well, believe it or not, such fear is not unjustified. Save for the War in Iraq, there have never been a war in the history of mankind that was started by a democracy. Looks like the world population actually do want peace after all.

Regards .

Wait a moment, if I recall correctly, most of the territory of the Roman Empire was obtained during the Roman *Republic*. Athens, another democracy was pretty militarily aggressive as well. Britain was a democracy when it was off colonising various countries around the world and seizing control of India. France was a democracy when all the brutality in Algeria occurred. Britain and France were both democracies when they carved up the Middle East between themselves and it was a democratic government that ordered chemical weapons to be used against innocent Iraqis during the early 20th century and ordered Kurdish villages to be bombed to the ground to "punish" them for supporting the insurgency. Being a democracy is no guarantee that a country will not be militarily aggressive or oppressive. It just means it won't do it against its *own* people. As long as you are *winning* generally the voters don't care what happens to some dark skinned people in a far off country.

EDIT: Democracy may be the will of the people but if the people believe in their own supremacy, have a contempt of other peoples and most importantly have a belief in their own manifest destiny to rule, then the will of the people will be to be oppressive and militarily aggressive against other countries. The *only* thing a democracy might protect against is if losses get high it might be more inclined to stop through domestic protest, though this is true in a non-democracy as well. And the prospect of losses is not a deterrent to a war *starting* if said democracy has a belief that their military and technological prowess is such that they will not lose or even take signficant losses.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Democracy is not a hurdle for war, but economic interdependency is. If China is allowed to invest in the US and if the US invests in China chances for war are dimming. Not only is a war impractical today, a war will be impossible with two tightly inter-locked economies.

 

[eyrei]

Democracy is not a hurdle for war, but economic interdependency is. If China is allowed to invest in the US and if the US invests in China chances for war are dimming. Not only is a war impractical today, a war will be impossible with two tightly inter-locked economies.

Unfortunately, trying to explain that to the 'hawks' on either side is like banging your head against a wall.

 

[Stapel]

Wait a moment, if I recall correctly, most of the territory of the Roman Empire was obtained during the Roman *Republic*.

Well, if you think the Roman empire was even close to a democracy, your post is ahrdly worth it to be replied. If you think republic = democracy, you seriously need to be re-educated. A republic is nothing but 'not a monarchy'. Both republics and monarchies can be democracies and both can be dictatoriship and both can be anything in between them.

Athens, another democracy was pretty militarily aggressive as well.

So, from the word 'another', I may conclude you actually regard the roamn Empire as a democracy ? Anyway: ancient Greece was no democracy, to our standards. If you really want insight in the city state democracy of Athens, and the wars vs Persia, the cold war vs Sparta and the hot war vs Sparta, you come to the conclusion Athens had the least militaristic regimes and ideas. You'll also see a thrilling similarity between the Pelopponesian 'cold' war and the one between NATO and Warshaw Pact (except this one actually turnt hot.) Regard Athens as democratic NATO and Sparta as dictatorial WP.

Britain was a democracy when it was off colonising various countries around the world and seizing control of India.

The colonisation process was not started under a democracy. Besides that, the colonised people didn;t vote. Colonisation is anti-democratic in itself.
But, you do have a point here. Democracies can feel superior and thus think it is right to spread that.

France was a democracy when all the brutality in Algeria occurred.

Those brutalities were the result over non-democratic colonisation sin the past.

Britain and France were both democracies when they carved up the Middle East between themselves and it was a democratic government that ordered chemical weapons to be used against innocent Iraqis during the early 20th century and ordered Kurdish villages to be bombed to the ground to "punish" them for supporting the insurgency.

Now, that is indeed a very valid point.

Being a democracy is no guarantee that a country will not be militarily aggressive or oppressive. It just means it won't do it against its *own* people. As long as you are *winning* generally the voters don't care what happens to some dark skinned people in a far off country.

Democracy is no magic potion that solves all crap in the world. But it is the best potion there is.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

On the one hand (as with the Souter's House deal), we've got "keep the government out of it". On the other hand, we've got "keep the corporations out of it". Problem is, there aren't too many methods, to really control corporations, except for government power. So it comes down to the question of who should have ultimate authority over the land. The answer changes depending on who you ask and whose interests are at stake.

But what happened in that case?

Economy knows no regional rivalry. It only knows competition and new opportunities in new markets.

Economy is not a pie to be divide between the EU, the US and China. It's a large pie, that keeps on growing!

But a strong economy means a greater military potential. As the sole superpower right now, the U.S can do pretty much everything they want that serve their interests without anyone to stop them. That might not be the case forever and they know it.

 

[BloodyPepperoni]

Save for the War in Iraq, there have never been a war in the history of mankind that was started by a democracy. Looks like the world population actually do want peace after all.

Regards .

Perhaps not a war officially but the deportation and extermination of Native Indians on the U.S soil comes to mind.

 

[Uiler]

Who ever said the Roman *empire* was a democracy? Read carefully, I said the Roman *Republic*. Let's see - Romans, citizens voted in public officials who were accountable to the voters. I think that counts as a democracy. Sure "citizens" were confined to Roman males but hey, early on in America, voting was confined to landed white Christian males and I don't see anyone saying, "America was not a democracy until at the earliest the 1960s!". Also, the Roman officials were mostly from the rich powerful families but how is that different from the situation in America today? And it *was* possible (though difficult) for poor commoners to gain immense political power e.g. Marius. The tribune of the plebs who held veto power are also another position where commoners really made their mark, mainly because of the veto power. There was a lot of manipulation of electorates (country vs city comes to mind) but that's not that much different from the situation today either. Yet the Roman public officials (who were accountable to the voters mine you) were perfectly able to go off warring, and in fact it was one of the most common ways to fill the Roman treasury. In fact it was almost expected in the later days of the Roman Republic. Public officials were greatly in favour of it because (1) it increased their prestige and (2) part of the treasure confiscated went to them personally.

Well, if you think the Roman empire was even close to a democracy, your post is ahrdly worth it to be replied. If you think republic = democracy, you seriously need to be re-educated. A republic is nothing but 'not a monarchy'. Both republics and monarchies can be democracies and both can be dictatoriship and both can be anything in between them.
So, from the word 'another', I may conclude you actually regard the roamn Empire as a democracy ?

 

[Uiler]

Even if it didn't start under a democracy the democracy did nothing to stop it and even thought it was great. And yes the colonised don't vote. And you know you just made my point. A democracy is not a magic tool that solves everything. A democracy only protects those who *vote*. Anyone else is fair game - people in other countries, even people in the same country who don't have the right to vote.

Also, if you think that the French and English colonised other countries to spread democracy, you are very naive. They colonised other countries for money and power. Just like a dictatorship or absolute monarchy would.

You could say they weren't *real* democracies. Well maybe not according to the American later 20th century post civil rights and feminist movement society. But from their POV they were democracies and everyone else seems to consider them democracies as does all the descriptions in the history books. This sort of argument reminds me of all those people who insist that whenever a religion tries to excuse acts of violence committed in the name of their god as, "They aren't *real* Christians/Muslims/whatever." It's known as trying to define your way out of argument. "But it wasn't *really* sex." With a very strict definition of democracy, even modern America is not a democracy, if you define democracy as one person, one vote with every single thing being directly voted upon by the public in a referendum (which does occur in some places).

The Senate - well there is the House of Lords in Britain you know. Also, sure things depended on patron-client relations and family connections, with things prearranged beforehand, but geezus, that means it's exactly like the modern Japanese system, which we still call a democracy. I believe there was a guy (who played principal roles in organising opposition parties and calling for reform for the last couple of decades) who recently did a survey in Japan and found that around a half of the elected officials came from families where their fathers and/or grandfathers were elected officials. Then there was a course the Assembly of Tribes where ordinary citizen's vote counted (though like today the electoral boundaries were skewed so it wasn't really one man one vote, city electorates had much less power than their population entailed). And their elected officials, tribunes (who had to be commoners or Plebs) could veto any law. Of course there was an immense of bribery but I see this as them being more honest about "campaign contributions"

The colonisation process was not started under a democracy. Besides that, the colonised people didn;t vote. Colonisation is anti-democratic in itself.
But, you do have a point here. Democracies can feel superior and thus think it is right to spread that.
Those brutalities were the result over non-democratic colonisation sin the past.

 

[farting bob]

It's built on U.S. soil.

It is a private business, it doesnt amtter where it is. Hell, it could be based on the whitehouse lawn, it is private company, teh government shouldnt get involved (unless its against antional security or something, which this is clearly not. 1% of US oil being owned by a chinese company isnt going to mean that china can whipe out US industry.
Scaremongering at best.

 

[muppet]

I really think this has a lot less to do with economics and more to do with fear of Chinese military power. Until we have a peaceful world, free trade is going to usually take a back seat to matters of security.

Just using the CIA Factbook to put the military angle in perspective..

USA
Total: 9,631,418 sq km
Population: 295,734,134
GDP Total: $11,750 Billion
GDP per capita: $40,100
Military Expenditure: $370.7 Billion

China
Total: 9,596,960 sq km
Population: 1,306,313,812
GDP Total: $7,262 Billion
GDP per capita: $5,600
Military Expenditure: $67.49 Billion

Let's see what we have..

Military Expenditure
China spends $67 billion and the US spends $370 billion. But it is China's budget, at about 19% the American budget, towards upgrading and expanding what is generally accepted to be an outdated military that is cause for concern, alarm and hysteria.

China and US total territory is similar in size
There isn't too much to compare. The US has approximately 1% more territory to defend than China. Hawaii, Anchorage, Miami, and Vegas are indeed quite valuable, that the addition of this 1% of sovereign territory should justify a military budget FIVE TIMES greater.

China's GDP weighs in at $7,626 billion, the US at $11,750 billion
This puts China's military expenditure at ONE PERCENT GDP, and American military expenditure at THREE PERCENT GDP. It is difficult to put an economic price on sovereignty. Nonetheless, it is not so clear economically, that American sovereignty is worth THREE TIMES Chinese sovereignty.

China's population comes in at about 1,300 million, the US at about 295 million
This means militarily, China spends approximately $52 per person, and the US more or less $1,250 per person. Compare this to the GDP per capita, with China at $5.6K and the US at $40.1K. It is interesting that in dollar terms, an American is eight times more productive than a Chinese, but the security and life of an American is TWENTY THREE TIMES more valuable than a Chinese.

In absolute terms, despite all the hoopla over the massive uncontrollable growth of the the Chinese military budget, it has recently become a whopping gargantuan ONE-FIFTH of the US budget. The words, non-starter, pretender, no contest, and peanuts come to mind. In relative terms, by measure of territory, total economic power, productivity, and population, it is simply an embarassement.

One would think the Chinese government is acting irresponsibly. If China were democratic.. it might be a good time for an election! If the hawks were Chinese, they would (and arguably should) be dissatisfied with China's undeniably and objectively inadequate military budget. Instead, our hawks are American, and what they imagine and what they want us to believe is, as per the norm, anything but the truth.

The hype, fear and drama over China's military expenditure to deny economic participation is a shallow excuse best characterized as propoganda, propoganda, and well.. propoganda. Depending on one's perspective, hypocricy may also be accurate.

 

[Sickman]

Of course this has lot to do how "democracy" is defined but..
Democratic countries and their people are ready to go war if they feel that their democracy is in danger.
Only thing stopping it is that the war might mean that they themselves are in greater danger as democratic country.

When propaganda of media succeeds in creating new "reality" for the voters by strong images of possible fear factors and how to defend against them,
leaders have free hands to lead the pack then whenever they want.
This doesn't only mean threatening outside forces but also inside forces.
In democratic country there must be enough criticism from media in order to able to create unbiased view about the state and it's actions.

One of the "unofficial" brances of power in democracy is free market and the actors in it.
If the free market is considered to be dangered by outside forces people will use their power in democracy to fight it and they are ready to defend themselves against things which could endanger their own position in free market.

Sometimes someone else's democracy and free market must be denied in order to save your own and ability to work in those towards your goals.