China holds the world's largest USD foreign exhange reserves 2

[devilhunterred]

The original thread is unavailable, I will just make a second ongoing thread and continue the discussion from there by responding to Patroklos' post.

Their newest submarine (Shang-class) has only one boat launched and that isn't even out of trials yet. Regardless, it is a run of the mill design not rated by anyone as anything special, though certainly an improvement over the 1974 vintage Han design.

The Han was the first SSN built by the Chinese; undoubtedly it was unreliable and prone to succumb to countless flaws. The Shang is already a vast improvement over the Han. It demonstrated the Chinese are steadily gaining mastery and advancement on their SSN designs, and securing the potential of their future models.

Give the Chinese some well-deserved credit. They have only started to build their very first indigenous submarine in the mid 1970s, the rate in which the Chinese is developing its navy (although given Russian assistance) is already nothing short of extraordinary. Keep in mind that there are only a handful of elite nations capable of constructing nuclear powered subs.

While it is true China has bought many subs from Russia, most of those are wholly obsolete Romeo-class or the Russian knock off copy the Ming class, which comprise 24 boats or exactly half of the Chinese attack submarine force. In other words, half of the Chinese submarine force is WWII vintage in design. So really the only thing the Russians have done is give them 12 Kilos, which while good are nothing special when compared to modern designs.

I agree the Romeo and Ming are obsolete in the lights of modern ships, but they are nonetheless valuable and useful assets to the PLAN in patrolling her vast Chinese shorelines.

Kilo isn’t an attack sub, it’s built for defending waters. And that’s what the Chinese will use them for. I have already stated earlier that in a war between China and US, China would play a defensive game. Romeo, Ming and the Kilo suit the Chinese defensive needs of its national waters exquisitely.

The Song-class, the only decent desiels China has, are just that. Decent. A German 214 would clean the floor with them. It should also be noted that the Songs (along with all of China's diesels with the exception of the Kilos) are useless for USW. Translation: cannon fodder for our submarines.

Non-sense.

You cannot claim such tangible and unequivocal statement merely by observation and comparison of their specs. Yes the German 214 has the technological edge, but outcome of warfare is decided on more than just hardwares.

If you’d said: “The German 214 has the edge and advantage over the Song class”, I’d agree. “Clean the floor” with them? I think not.

Furthermore, most specs found on Chinese (or any non NATO member nation, for that matter) military nowadays are generally observed and roughly estimated by the US intelligence, but the validity and the veracity of these estimates have since been bombarded with doubts and questions by various western military analysts.

You should also note that nowhere and never have I ever stated that China has the best submarines in the world on par with United States’. My original claim was that: “Chinese submarines are becoming a force to be reckoned with”, which is certainly true.

Russian submarines are nothing special anymore. The designs are all 1980's tech which makes then decent relative to the world, slightly or wholly inferior in regards to contemporary Western designs.

Russia has taken a back-seat in sub-building since mid 80s and is still being revitalized, but its naval tech-developing is a whole new different story. R&D saw a drastic fall throughout the early 90s due to the recent fall of the USSR, but has since been revived in 95 and 2000, especially under the leadership of Putin. Russian has shed lights of the fruits of their decades long of development with the Yasen and Borei/Borey class. Although both classes have yet to be fully operational, their state of the art Russian designs have already promised much potential.

“Wholly inferior in regards to contemporary Western designs”? Not at all.

The vast majority of China's fleet (the diesels) would be for all intents and purposes only be effective at all inside the first island chain. Thats all well in good for trying to keep relief from reaching Taiwan or us from invading China (which we don't want to do anyway), but wholly useless in preventing us from keeping consumer good and resource commerce in lock down.

You place too much emphasize on nuclear subs. Diesel electric subs is by no means inferior, and is only disadvantaged by its periodic battery recharge. Diesel electric subs aren’t restricted by the demanding nuclear reactor, thus can be built in smaller sizes, representing a harder target to hit in combat. Diesel electric subs are also well-known for their superior noise-deduction and insulation, thus much more difficult to be detected than nuclear subs. These qualities made diesel electric sub ideal for ambushes, patrols, and defending shorelines: precisely and perfectly what China needs, and exactly why it would be difficult for US to have a complete sea-blockade over China.

This has been discussed many times on these boards, US warships cruising in peaceful waters are not only not looking for "enemy" subs, they are not looking for subs period. That means no sub hunter aircraft are up, sonoar is not even powered up. The Chinese did not sneak up on anyone, you have fallen victim to a juvenile propoganda stunt. It did not make Western analysts reevaluate anything force was, mearly China's boldness (and complete disregard for maritime safety and decorum in peacetime).

Completely wrong.

The naval fleet consisting of the USS Kitty Hawk was deployed in a training exercise near Okinawa, Japan, meaning the sonar detection and security of the entire fleet were in full alert. Moreover, active and patrolling US military vessels operating in the western Pacific are also always on alert with their sonar active despite being in peace time, as it’s near the politically sensitive waters of the Taiwan Strait and the Chinese submarines long have a reputation of lurking in its surrounding waters.

Detail was that the Chinese Song class sub was able to sail past a dozen US cruisers and destroyers as well as two US submarines surrounding the USS Kitty Hawk completely undetected. And it wasn’t discovered until the Chinese submarine surfaced within 5-8 km (depending on the source) of the US supercarrier: well within the range of firing torpedo and missiles.

“According to senior NATO officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy."

“The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such threat.”

One NATO figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.

He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans.”

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/91150/chinese_submarine_beats_navys_best.html?cat=15

No, they cannot. At most they could make trade in the western part of the Pacific troublesome, but not enought to harm any war effort. They are not in a position to harm any US base to any meaningful degree.

The Chinese absolutely has the ability to “inflict physical harm to American interests worldwide”, and I specifically emphasized on “foreign bases”, referring to American oversea military bases. The Chinese has already aimed 1300+ cruise missiles at Taiwan across the Strait; these missiles can easily target American bases in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines instead. LACM, which China has plenty of, can be launched against American bases in Indonesia and Australia (although the US military presence in Philippines and Australia are trivial). While the American mainland airspace is protected by anti-ballistic missiles, most American oversea bases certainly don’t have this luxury.

1.) The naval component of this game will take a couple weeks at most. At that point the Chinese fleet will be destroyed (sure, they will get their token licks in), and if not they will be forced to return to base for refuel (sucks to rely on diesels) at which point they will be destoyed from the air, which won't matter much as their port facilities will be in ruins by that point anyway.

2.) The US can realitively easily bombard China from the air in the initial stages from Japan, SK, or Thiland all three of which are garunteed to be in the conflict on the US side. Chances are India will be happy to assist as well.

3.) There is nothing China can do to to stop cruise missiles from leveling every power plant, major command stucture, and bridge in China.

1) Diesel-electric subs don’t need to return to port for recharging, they merely need to surface.

2) You speak of a laughable “guarantee” when so much is in doubt and uncertainty.

Japan since had a new prime minster in late 2008, and one of his key foreign policies was to improve the much needed relations with China, mostly because China is Japan’s largest trading partner. In recent years Japan has also shown increase of anti-Americanism, specifically against the American military presence in the country. It’s extremely unclear which camp Japan would side with if China and US goes to war, but I bet my money it will remain neutral.

As for SK, well, China is also its largest trading partner…………And same as Japan, SK has also shown increase of anti-Americanism (even more so than Japan) in the past few years. It really serves SK no benefits to go to war with either side, especially with NK shadowing its border. SK is very, very likely to be neutral as well.

Thailand is a freelance, but it doesn’t have any military value to assist either side. Allying with the US to provide geographical airstrike capability against China? Possibly. But why do you think Thailand would risk being the target of China’s missiles by providing airfields to the US?

Your “guarantee” ultimately falls flat on its promise.

3) China has already proven its ability to shoot down satellites in space orbit in 2007. It has long developed its own ABM program since late 60s and yielded satisfying results. Chinese’s ABM still needs time to mature, but it can certainly do something about incoming American missiles.

1.) A China/US war is a whole different entity than a US/Iraq war. Besides a few idiots this will dawn on the US public real quik.

2.) The Chinese people did not "accept" one million casualties, they were told to shut up and suck it up at bayonett point. Not that the average Chinese communist party member bothered to tell the Chinese citizenry what the casualties actually were.

3.) This is not old China. There is already major discontent in urban China due to the current economic stife that is nothing but trivial compared to what would be the case if China and the US were at war.

1) Fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda is one thing, fighting against a nation is a different matter. It will certainly make the American people more tolerating and understanding to casualties, but it doesn’t make them altogether impervious to the figures. And it’s unquestionable that the American public has a faster breaking point than the Chinese public in accepting casualties. The question is: how many.


2) “The Chinese people did not "accept" one million casualties, they were told to shut up and suck it up at bayonett point.”

No they weren’t. Stop make stuff up out of thin air. I studied modern Chinese history back in GCSE, which certainly included the Korean War. If you want to prove your claims, show me some historical sources.

3) You truly underestimate the Chinese people’s fanatical patriotism. They may be becoming unsatisfied with the growing unemployment rate, but their fierce loyalty and allegiance to the state is never questioned, particularly and especially during the times of war with the US when they understand that their survival as a nation, as a race, is threatened.

I speak of my personal experience during my 5 years of living in Hong Kong and China, travelling back and forth between the two borders on a weekly basis, from June 2004 to August 2008. I have only returned to UK last September.

The vast majority of the holdings are bonds. If we say they are paid off, they are paid off. Normally that would crush our credit, but since we are at war no other country would hold it against us, as anyone not planning on going to war with us was no reason to worry.

In fact, such a move would make other countries bond holdings more valuable, as the chances for a real buy back are FAR better without the Chinese bond holding volume out there. Yes we can, because if we are at war with China, who is going to take them? Again, they don't have cash, they have bonds. If we declare them invalid, they are in fact invalid. Their value basically goes right back to the US treasury (and to the other bond holders).

Completely wrong.

US government bonds account to no more than $400 billion USD in Chinese foreign exchange reserves, that’s only about 20% of the total Chinese holdings on US assets. US can certainly refuse to pay off the $400 billion USD worth of bonds and debt to the Chinese, but there still remain approximately 80% of the reserves, which amounts to about 1.5 trillion USD worth of cash, investments, liquid assets as well as intangible assets to crash the American economy.

Cancelling out Chinese holdings on US debt would never increase the value of other US bond holders. A government bond is simply a loan of definite figure. Deleting a creditor’s account does not raise the worth of other creditors. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

A move like you have mentioned would only serve to destroy the American economy even further as the US international finance credibility and reputation in the global market is completely ruined. It would aggregate other major holders of US bonds, including Japan and Europe, to prompt US treasury to pay off their own bonds, fearing that US would do the same thing to their holdings in the light of coming out of a financial crisis. Thereafter American bonds would no longer be known to be secure and low risk investments, foreign nations would never purchase American bonds ever again, crashing the US economy even more as it’s ever so dependant and rely on foreign loans to be sustainable. In fact, the only reason US economy is able to survive today is because the government is printing out cash like mad, desperate to pay off its $10 trillion+ worth of foreign debt that is ever steadily growing $15 billion dollars on a monthly basis.

I suggest you take up Macroecon 102, Quantitative econ 299 and M&B 341, before making things up on matters you obviously have little to no knowledge of.

Operations cost money? We are talking about total war here. Pay or not, every person in uniform will show up to work regardless. The goverment can confiscate whatever resources it needs. And given the circumstances, most Americans will happily go without to an extent. That can't go on forever, but it can go on for quite awhile.

To give you a perspective, every time the US launches a single Tomahawk, it would set it back half a million dollars. US launched anywhere from 800 to 1000 Tomahawks in Iraq. The total campaign in Iraq cost over $3 trillion to the entire American nation. How much do you think it will cost for US to launch a campaign against China?

US isn’t a completely self-sustainable country especially in terms of strategic war production resources, in fact it is heavily dependant on foreign imports. It imports more than 50% of its oil and gas (mostly from OPEC), virtually all of its uranium (Russia being the biggest supplier), all of its titanium (Russia being a major supplier), all of its alloy, more than 95% of its steel, and guess who’s the largest supplier of steel to US? You guessed it, China.

How do you think US is able to purchase these war production resources to make missiles, rockets, jet fighters, bullets and warships during total war when their currency becomes worthless, Parker Brothers’ Monopoly money?

No doubt most patriotic Americans are willing to work for war effort without wages or any payments, but I wouldn’t say the same for many of US’s foreign suppliers.

Claiming that US can “go on for awhile” in times of war with a crashed economy is simply wishful thinking on your part.

Necessity is the mother of invention. With Chinese competition gone and an unsupplied demand, those countries will trip over each other trying to fill the void

A nation’s sound political infrastructure, international commerce framework, financial institutions and domestic economic conditions do not magically appear overnight. Constitutions needs to be rewritten, new laws need to be passed, work force need to be trained, capital need to be modernized, logistics infrastructure needs to be built, entrepreneurship need to be encouraged, financial institutions need to be reformed, domestic productivity need to be enhanced…….I can go on, and on, and on.

It took China two decades to firmly establish itself as the World’s Factory since the Open Door policies of Deng Xiaoping in the 70s. Those countries you mentioned can “trip over each other trying to fill the void” left by China all they want, but it will be at minimum a good decade before any of them is capable of filling into China’s shoes, and what will happen to the US import commodity goods market during these 10 years? Drastically rising prices, soaring CPI, inflation, nearly 0% interests rate, massive poverty.

What? Would you please stop making stuff up, you are pulling this straight out of your ass. "OH NOES THEY HAVE SUPER SECRET WARHEADS (but I know about them!)"

China can have all the nukes it wants, but it only has enough ICBMs to cripple the US, there is no risk of a Chinese/US war ending in worldwide destuction unless Russia jumps in the mix.

Did I ever say “China has super secret warheads”?

No.

Learn to read.

I said the Chinese nuclear program has gone underground in secret for the past five decades, and because it isn’t UN regulated, no one truly knows how many warheads the Chinese possess. Any figures available are rough guesses at best.

Nor did I ever claim that a Chinese US nuclear exchange would result in world wide destruction. That was your own personal misinterpretation. My implication was that it would create a severe catastrophe.

Maybe if you spend half of your time of making stuff up about false economic theories and the Korean War on learning to read, your English reading comprehension skills would skyrocket.

Well then its a good thing I didn't say that, but rather minimal COMPARED to a Russian/US exchange.

Minimal? Hardly.

Thats not what made them a power, bullying France/Prussia/Spain and generally getting away with it or at least holding their own is what made them a power.
Iraq has nothing to do with why we are a super power.

Your reading comprehension has a serious problem.

I never said countries invade weaker nations because that’s what make them a superpower. I said superpowers invade weaker nations because that’s what superpowers do.

Britain had considerable political influence over France, Prussia and Spain for a period of time, but she didn’t “bully” them.

False. The more peers or near peers you can hold your own against is what creates a power. Not having any peers makes you a super power.

Your statement is deeply flawed.

US and USSR were nations of equivalent preponderance during the Cold War. They were peers, yet they were both superpowers.

 

[Godwynn]

I am the world's largest holder of Iraqi Dinar that I pulled off of Ebay.

 

[RedRalph]

Patroklos, looks like you've found someone whose not intimidated by your expertise... this should be good. Devil, you seem to really know your stuff

 

[Patroklos]

The original thread is unavailable, I will just make a second ongoing thread and continue the discussion from there by responding to Patroklos' post.

The Han was the first SSN built by the Chinese; undoubtedly it was unreliable and prone to succumb to countless flaws. The Shang is already a vast improvement over the Han. It demonstrated the Chinese are steadily gaining mastery and advancement on their SSN designs, and securing the potential of their future models.

Which does not address anything I said. The Chinese are on their second class of nuclear submarine, the US is somewhere in their 20th. If you track that, the US is increasing its experience/advancement gap with the Chinese.

The question isn't whether the Chinese are improving their designs, it is if they are improving their designs at a rate fast enough to catch up with other nations. And even if they were catching up as you claim, you yourself seem to understand just how inferior a Shang is to a Los Angeles let alone a Seawolf/Virginia/Astute.

Give the Chinese some well-deserved credit. They have only started to build their very first indigenous submarine in the mid 1970s, the rate in which the Chinese is developing its navy (although given Russian assistance) is already nothing short of extraordinary. Keep in mind that there are only a handful of elite nations capable of constructing nuclear powered subs.

Hey, I will give the Chinese credit for improvements all day if we are just comparing their own classes. We are not doing that. We are comparing them relative to the classes of other nations.

I agree the Romeo and Ming are obsolete in the lights of modern ships, but they are nonetheless valuable and useful assets to the PLAN in patrolling her vast Chinese shorelines.

China's shorelines are hardly vast compared to the world’s other maritime nations of note.

And no, they are not useful for patrolling any more than T-34s would be useful for patroling. At least not against the likes of the US or Russia.

Kilo isn’t an attack sub, it’s built for defending waters. And that’s what the Chinese will use them for. I have already stated earlier that in a war between China and US, China would play a defensive game. Romeo, Ming and the Kilo suit the Chinese defensive needs of its national waters exquisitely.

There is no such thing as a "defensive sub." The term attack sub merely refers to a submarine designed to attack surface and subsurface contacts vice shoot ballistic missiles. The Kilo could just as easily be used offensively as it could be used defensively.

And I am glad you are finally understanding the limits of Chinese naval might, that their only option is to deny adversaries the us of the Yellow and East/South China sea, a war of attrition they have no hope of fighting for more than a few weeks. Note, this leaves the US in complete control of the air via the first island chain (the implications for USW I hope you understand). You will then have to also note that this means lines of communications for the continental US remain completely open by any relevant measure, and China is completely cut off from maritime trade.

As has been told to you already, the Romeo and Ming classes have ZERO USW capability. This is a simple fact and any cursory examination of the specification of these boats makes this abundantly clear. The primary anti-submarine tool of the US is its own submarines, meaning that besides the diminutive (though formidable ) Kilos your diesel force is completely outnumbered and outclasses by US assets.

Non-sense.

You cannot claim such tangible and unequivocal statement merely by observation and comparison of their specs. Yes the German 214 has the technological edge, but outcome of warfare is decided on more than just hardwares.

If you’d said: “The German 214 has the edge and advantage over the Song class”, I’d agree. “Clean the floor” with them? I think not.

Please tell me how the Ming or Romeo class can do anything but die against a 214 given they have absolutely no ASW ability whatsoever?

The Song class was the first Chinese submarine capable of combating other submarines, the Ming and Romeo's sole USW relevance is their ability to lay mines, something all submarines can do.

Furthermore, most specs found on Chinese (or any non NATO member nation, for that matter) military nowadays are generally observed and roughly estimated by the US intelligence, but the validity and the veracity of these estimates have since been bombarded with doubts and questions by various western military analysts.

Oh here we go again, "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SUPER SECRET STUFF THAT WE DON'T KNOW BUT WILL ASSUME SO MY PET SIDE DOESN'T LOOK PATHETIC!?!?!?!"

Look, I am willing to bet against the off hand chance the Chinese are rocking Sea Quest tech. However, all we have right now for rational comparison is what is readily available to us.

And who do you think is more likely to have extremely expensive top secret game changing equipment anyway, the US or China?

You should also note that nowhere and never have I ever stated that China has the best submarines in the world on par with United States’. My original claim was that: “Chinese submarines are becoming a force to be reckoned with”, which is certainly true.

And nowhere did I say the US would come away from a conflict with China unscathed, I would expect to lose several ships and boats during the reduction of the PLAN.

Russia has taken a back-seat in sub-building since mid 80s and is still being revitalized, but its naval tech-developing is a whole new different story. R&D saw a drastic fall throughout the early 90s due to the recent fall of the USSR, but has since been revived in 95 and 2000, especially under the leadership of Putin. Russian has shed lights of the fruits of their decades long of development with the Yasen and Borei/Borey class. Although both classes have yet to be fully operational, their state of the art Russian designs have already promised much potential.

I would not put any of those classes above your average Los Angeles. The US has always spent more on R&D than Russia. Every piece of Russian hardware we get a hold of is impressive primarily because of how NOT capable it is compared to what we thought of it before hand.

Not only does the US spend more than Russia, we never took a hiatus in the 90s. Why exactly would you think Russia could catch up with us by spending less money during less time?

“Wholly inferior in regards to contemporary Western designs”? Not at all.

You place too much emphasize on nuclear subs. Diesel electric subs is by no means inferior, and is only disadvantaged by its periodic battery recharge. Diesel electric subs aren’t restricted by the demanding nuclear reactor, thus can be built in smaller sizes, representing a harder target to hit in combat. Diesel electric subs are also well-known for their superior noise-deduction and insulation, thus much more difficult to be detected than nuclear subs. These qualities made diesel electric sub ideal for ambushes, patrols, and defending shorelines: precisely and perfectly what China needs, and exactly why it would be difficult for US to have a complete sea-blockade over China.

Of course we put emphasis on nuclear subs, they are the only type that can operationally relevant a globe away. That fact in and of itself, that we will be fighting in and around China off the bat, should mean something to you.

Completely wrong.

The naval fleet consisting of the USS Kitty Hawk was deployed in a training exercise near Okinawa, Japan, meaning the sonar detection and security of the entire fleet were in full alert.

Does it now? I mean, it is not like I haven't participated in several dozen of these over the years and am telling you that this is not the case should matter, right? I mean, whey you play video games that’s just not how it goes!

So those fake geographic islands that don't exist in reality that we use for practice and dictate our axis of threat match a China scenario perfectly, right? When we are doing an AAW exercise we always have the sonar pinging away, right?

Guess what we do between stages of the exercise? WE RESET, which means none of the forces are looking for anything while going back to their opening staging areas.

You are in over your head here. Just because we are conducting exercises in one warfare area does not mean we are doing so in all. If our exercise geography dictates that our axis of threat is to the NE, we are not going to be focusing on the SW (which might just happen to be where China is). In fact, when we are conducting exercises in one warfare area we many times purposely order other forces away to avoid accidents.

Moreover, active and patrolling US military vessels operating in the western Pacific are also always on alert with their sonar active despite being in peace time, as it’s near the politically sensitive waters of the Taiwan Strait and the Chinese submarines long have a reputation of lurking in its surrounding waters.

Oh really? You know, I only have about a hundred thousand miles of cruising time under my belt, maybe I didn't notice I had fully energized sonar despite being the OOD.

Please stop making this stuff up. China is not our enemy, we in no way expect or think there will be some sort of surprise attack on a sole US warship transiting PEACEFUL waters. Sonar is always on, but not at full power and passive with 25% manning for transits around anywhere but North Korea and Iran. Do you know why we have that one lonely watchstander there listening to nothing 99% of the time? Whales. We don't like hitting them.

Detail was that the Chinese Song class sub was able to sail past a dozen US cruisers and destroyers as well as two US submarines surrounding the USS Kitty Hawk completely undetected. And it wasn’t discovered until the Chinese submarine surfaced within 5-8 km (depending on the source) of the US supercarrier: well within the range of firing torpedo and missiles.

1.) There is no US CSG that deploys with a dozen combatants. Ever. As a case in point, the last one I was with included the Enterprise, the Leyte Gulf, the Mcfaul, Nicholas, and the Albany.

Thats 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, 1 Frigate, and 1 SSN.

2.) At no point during a cruise does anyone but the USW coordinator on the carrier and the admiral know where approximately the submarines are. The idea that whoever is writing your article knew this is hilarious. Case in point, in seven months the only time I ever knew where the Albany was was when it made a port visit, 2000 miles away from us.

“According to senior NATO officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy."

As I hope it would. The idea that China, a nation we are at peace with, would close another nations warships in open waters unannounced is not only the height of rudness, but also extraordinarily dangerous from a maritime perspective.

“The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such threat.”

One NATO figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

Until you give names, I do not care what "NATO figures" say.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

Only for people who assume what they want, or otherwise have no idea what they are talking about. Which of course China knows constitutes the majority of the arm chair admirals of the world and is in fact the point of their stunt. Congratulations on being so utterly predicable.

As I have said before, I am pretty sure I could run up to Shaq and grab a ball from him while he unexpectedly waits at a bus stop. What exactly does that prove about by basketball abilities?

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War.

This is in fact true, FROM THE SURFACE WARFARE PERSPECTIVE. We really haven't had much opportunity to practice it, the reality is that small boat ops and AAW have dominated our actual experience for quite sometime.

However, for obvious reasons ASW is still what our submarine force, the most technically advance, largest, and well trained in the world, continues to eat and breath 24 hours a day.

The Chinese absolutely has the ability to “inflict physical harm to American interests worldwide”, and I specifically emphasized on “foreign bases”, referring to American oversea military bases. The Chinese has already aimed 1300+ cruise missiles at Taiwan across the Strait; these missiles can easily target American bases in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines instead. LACM, which China has plenty of, can be launched against American bases in Indonesia and Australia (although the US military presence in Philippines and Australia are trivial). While the American mainland airspace is protected by anti-ballistic missiles, most American oversea bases certainly don’t have this luxury.

You realize that Japan and SK (the only bases the US have in range of Chinese missiles) hardly qualifies as "American interests worldwide." Of course all of those bases are in fact protected by Patriot III terminal phase and sea based BMD mid cource interception, but I digress.

Please explain how China plans on harming any US interest in South Asia, South America, Africa, Europe, or the Middile East.

Face it, China has no ability to harm American bases and economic activity in any place other than South Korea and Japan. Japan will probably be militarily involved regardless, if China really wants to start sending cruise missiles into SK all that will really do is put SK on the US side militarily as well (whose Navy is VERY significant).

1) Diesel-electric subs don’t need to return to port for recharging, they merely need to surface.

They do need to return to refuel and rearm.

2) You speak of a laughable “guarantee” when so much is in doubt and uncertainty.

Are you seriously trying to say that Chinese port facilities will not be at the mercy of US air power?

Japan since had a new prime minster in late 2008, and one of his key foreign policies was to improve the much needed relations with China, mostly because China is Japan’s largest trading partner. In recent years Japan has also shown increase of anti-Americanism, specifically against the American military presence in the country. It’s extremely unclear which camp Japan would side with if China and US goes to war, but I bet my money it will remain neutral.

You are delusional. Regardless of what ties you think Japan and China has the fact is that they are regional rivals. Japan's most important ally in every sense is still the US, and a Japan at the mercy of a victorious China is an unthinkable scenario for them. Not to mention Japan has much to gain by a defeated China.

As for SK, well, China is also its largest trading partner…………And same as Japan, SK has also shown increase of anti-Americanism (even more so than Japan) in the past few years. It really serves SK no benefits to go to war with either side, especially with NK shadowing its border. SK is very, very likely to be neutral as well.

I agree, though your illusions about "anti-americanism" have nothing to do with it.

Thailand is a freelance, but it doesn’t have any military value to assist either side. Allying with the US to provide geographical airstrike capability against China? Possibly. But why do you think Thailand would risk being the target of China’s missiles by providing airfields to the US?

I don't think you quite understand what Chinese missiles are build to do, but yes Thailand would happily participate in the humbling of China because a victorious and regionally dominate China with no check on it is an unthinkable scenario (as it is for every nation in Asia).

Your “guarantee” ultimately falls flat on its promise.

3) China has already proven its ability to shoot down satellites in space orbit in 2007. It has long developed its own ABM program since late 60s and yielded satisfying results. Chinese’s ABM still needs time to mature, but it can certainly do something about incoming American missiles.

OMG THEY SHOT DOWN A SATILITTE. DH, we are talking about a war between a regional power and global hegemon. We are talking about a war that will involve millions of personnel on each side going at each other with everything they have. Do you honestly think a couple shot down satellites is some sort of game changer? China shoots down a couple satellites, fine. In the mean time we are melting China's infrastructure to the ground, who wins in that exchange?

And please stop making things up about China, there is no indication that China has any ABM ability besides the local terminal phase that every modern SAM system provides.

1) Fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda is one thing, fighting against a nation is a different matter. It will certainly make the American people more tolerating and understanding to casualties, but it doesn’t make them altogether impervious to the figures. And it’s unquestionable that the American public has a faster breaking point than the Chinese public in accepting casualties. The question is: how many.

There will always be the simple fact that this war will be fought around and over China itself. Its not just military casualties like in Korea, Chinese citizens will be seeing their bridges/power plants/government buildings/airports/seaports/etc. being attacked every day. They will also be suffering from a near complete loss of oil supplies. A near complete loss of imported food. A complete loss of their ability to export anything.

2) “The Chinese people did not "accept" one million casualties, they were told to shut up and suck it up at bayonett point.”

No they weren’t. Stop make stuff up out of thin air. I studied modern Chinese history back in GCSE, which certainly included the Korean War. If you want to prove your claims, show me some historical sources.

Thats nice, but did they study the Korean war in 1955? How was that free and impartial media doing under Mao?

3) You truly underestimate the Chinese people’s fanatical patriotism. They may be becoming unsatisfied with the growing unemployment rate, but their fierce loyalty and allegiance to the state is never questioned, particularly and especially during the times of war with the US when they understand that their survival as a nation, as a race, is threatened.

Alright, even you have to be chuckling at this RRW.

I speak of my personal experience during my 5 years of living in Hong Kong and China, travelling back and forth between the two borders on a weekly basis, from June 2004 to August 2008. I have only returned to UK last September.

1.) HK does not equal mainland China in any way shape or form.

2.) I have lived in the US all my life, so why are you lecturing me on the US citizenry then?

3.) I will apply your "experiance" test to our naval discussion. You lose.

Completely wrong.

US government bonds account to no more than $400 billion USD in Chinese foreign exchange reserves, that’s only about 20% of the total Chinese holdings on US assets. US can certainly refuse to pay off the $400 billion USD worth of bonds and debt to the Chinese, but there still remain approximately 80% of the reserves, which amounts to about 1.5 trillion USD worth of cash, investments, liquid assets as well as intangible assets to crash the American economy.

Everything but cash can simply be siezed, and again since we are at war with China nobody would hold that against us. My statment stands.

Cancelling out Chinese holdings on US debt would never increase the value of other US bond holders. A government bond is simply a loan of definite figure. Deleting a creditor’s account does not raise the worth of other creditors. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

It certainly does, because it increases the ability of the US to pay back the remaining bonds.

A move like you have mentioned would only serve to destroy the American economy even further as the US international finance credibility and reputation in the global market is completely ruined. It would aggregate other major holders of US bonds, including Japan and Europe, to prompt US treasury to pay off their own bonds, fearing that US would do the same thing to their holdings in the light of coming out of a financial crisis. Thereafter American bonds would no longer be known to be secure and low risk investments, foreign nations would never purchase American bonds ever again, crashing the US economy even more as it’s ever so dependant and rely on foreign loans to be sustainable. In fact, the only reason US economy is able to survive today is because the government is printing out cash like mad, desperate to pay off its $10 trillion+ worth of foreign debt that is ever steadily growing $15 billion dollars on a monthly basis.

No other country would be worried about anything of the sort, it is a no brainer that the US would repocess bonds to a nation they are at war with. There is absolutely no reason why any other nation would expect to fight the US after the US defeats China in a war China started (the only realistic way war could possibly happen between them). Again, all it would to is reduce the Us debt burden and secure the remaining outstanding bonds.

I suggest you take up Macroecon 102, Quantitative econ 299 and M&B 341, before making things up on matters you obviously have little to no knowledge of.

I suggest you apply common sense 101 and realize the idea of the the US honoring or being expected to honor debt to a nation it is at war with is patently absurd.

To give you a perspective, every time the US launches a single Tomahawk, it would set it back half a million dollars. US launched anywhere from 800 to 1000 Tomahawks in Iraq. The total campaign in Iraq cost over $3 trillion to the entire American nation. How much do you think it will cost for US to launch a campaign against China?

And that was 800-1000 major infrustucture and military targets destroyed, all of which probably cost more than the missile.

The total six year war is PROJECTED (and it is highly disputed) to cost 3 trillion dollars. There will of course be no occupation of China, but given it will be a full scale war the cost will be higher than the Iraqi invasion. However, given that US territory will have suffered not a single relevant hit during the war and China will be a battlefield, I think you should be more worried about what it will cost China.

US isn’t a completely self-sustainable country especially in terms of strategic war production resources, in fact it is heavily dependant on foreign imports. It imports more than 50% of its oil and gas (mostly from OPEC), virtually all of its uranium (Russia being the biggest supplier), all of its titanium (Russia being a major supplier), all of its alloy, more than 95% of its steel, and guess who’s the largest supplier of steel to US? You guessed it, China.

1.) As has been discussed, China has exactly ZERO ability to interdict US lines of communication

2.) Why exactly do we require steel in a conflict with China? So no new high rises get built for a few months.

3.) You understand that China will be suffering a near complete embargo, right?

How do you think US is able to purchase these war production resources to make missiles, rockets, jet fighters, bullets and warships during total war when their currency becomes worthless, Parker Brothers’ Monopoly money?

It is irrelevant, in a China/US war (as would be the case with a war between any major power) it will be fought with the forces each can bring to bear within a few months. There isn't going to be factories pouring out liberty ships/T-34s/Bf-109s, one side will have decisive victory within a month, it may drag on for a few more after that until the loser realizes the futility of suffering further damage.

No doubt most patriotic Americans are willing to work for war effort without wages or any payments, but I wouldn’t say the same for many of US’s foreign suppliers.

This is only important to the aftermath, it is irrelevant to the actual conflict.

Claiming that US can “go on for awhile” in times of war with a crashed economy is simply wishful thinking on your part.

They why you claiming China can do it. I mean, what do you think losing 80%+ of its oil supply on day one will do for China?

A nation’s sound political infrastructure, international commerce framework, financial institutions and domestic economic conditions do not magically appear overnight. Constitutions needs to be rewritten, new laws need to be passed, work force need to be trained, capital need to be modernized, logistics infrastructure needs to be built, entrepreneurship need to be encouraged, financial institutions need to be reformed, domestic productivity need to be enhanced…….I can go on, and on, and on.

It took China two decades to firmly establish itself as the World’s Factory since the Open Door policies of Deng Xiaoping in the 70s. Those countries you mentioned can “trip over each other trying to fill the void” left by China all they want, but it will be at minimum a good decade before any of them is capable of filling into China’s shoes, and what will happen to the US import commodity goods market during these 10 years? Drastically rising prices, soaring CPI, inflation, nearly 0% interests rate, massive poverty.

Which will pail in comparison to the plight of China. But regardless, I am glad you agree that there is in fact nothing special about China and that there are plenty of players in the wings more than happy to fill China's shoes.

Did I ever say “China has super secret warheads”?

No.

Learn to read.

I said the Chinese nuclear program has gone underground in secret for the past five decades, and because it isn’t UN regulated, no one truly knows how many warheads the Chinese possess. Any figures available are rough guesses at best.

Exactly, you just again claimed they have secret warheads.

Nor did I ever claim that a Chinese US nuclear exchange would result in world wide destruction. That was your own personal misinterpretation. My implication was that it would create a severe catastrophe.

Then you should have said that instead of the factually erroneous statement you did make.

Maybe if you spend half of your time of making stuff up about false economic theories and the Korean War on learning to read, your English reading comprehension skills would skyrocket.

I am still trying to figure out why simple reference material like Wiki escapes you.

Minimal? Hardly.

Do you undertand what the word "compared" means? Wiki can help you with that too.

Your reading comprehension has a serious problem.

I never said countries invade weaker nations because that’s what make them a superpower. I said superpowers invade weaker nations because that’s what superpowers do.

By definition, any nation a superpower invades besides another super power is weaker.

Britain had considerable political influence over France, Prussia and Spain for a period of time, but she didn’t “bully” them.

Ah, so then you must be flabergasted at all the talk about America "bullying" Europe over the past decade. BTW, I suggest you read up on Nepoleanic Europe, you obvioulsy missed it.

Your statement is deeply flawed.

US and USSR were nations of equivalent preponderance during the Cold War. They were peers, yet they were both superpowers.

You are just a little quibble machine aren't you. Yes, relative to each other the Soviet Union and the US were not superpowers, it was their complete dwarfing of everyone else that granted them that status.

 

[Gooblah]

Did I ever say “China has super secret warheads”?

No.

Learn to read.

I said the Chinese nuclear program has gone underground in secret for the past five decades, and because it isn’t UN regulated, no one truly knows how many warheads the Chinese possess. Any figures available are rough guesses at best.

Exactly, you just again claimed they have secret warheads.

Just throwing this out there, but nowhere in the actual quote does devil say that they have secret warheads. He just points out that noone knows the exact number of warheads China possesses.

 

[Patroklos]

Just throwing this out there, but nowhere in the actual quote does devil say that they have secret warheads. He just points out that noone knows the exact number of warheads China possesses.

His intention is to muddy the arguement with unfounded possibilities, namely that China may have SUPER SECRET warheads we don't know about.

It is along the same lines a his...

"Furthermore, most specs found on Chinese (or any non NATO member nation, for that matter) military nowadays are generally observed and roughly estimated by the US intelligence, but the validity and the veracity of these estimates have since been bombarded with doubts and questions by various western military analysts. "

comment.

He knows that according to the specs and forces we can compare from the sources China is outclassed, so he is trying to pretend that the Chinese arsenal might be entirely different than that.

Thats great for speculation, it is absolutely meaningles for a relative comparison for stength. The US has a lot of secret stuff too, you don't see me trying to say it doesn't matter how may tanks China has becaus the US might have a steel liquification flield none of us know about do you?

 

[chauism]

Let's get back on the topic of economics, shouldn't we?

Here is an article I have come across this morning and I think it has some interesting angles to it.

How China's economy is Defeating the USA

This section discusses the recent book “In the Jaws of the Dragon -- America’s Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony.”

The author, Eamonn Fingleton, is the former editor of Forbes and Financial Times and has many credentials. His main thrust is that USA leaders have misjudged the superiority and weaknesses of our democratic system.

The USA/Washington view has been betting that “sooner or later China's economic progress will create internal conditions for a democratic regime that will be more stable and less of an economic rival. This common view is a flattering regard for western culture.

“The second bet – that of Chinese leadership – is that China can be both rich and authoritarian.”

Anyone who studies the book must ask, “How do we know democracy will be the winner in the present competitive world?” Democracy has never been tested in a political or economic war against a Confucian system that has modern manufacturing and scientific knowledge ... as China does now. We just accept the unproven ideology that democracy is best regardless of world competition and the self- imposed handicaps we put on our success. For the last 50 years, our spotty success in warfare in the Middle East and Southeast Asia and our trade imbalance are not reassuring.

The more obvious features of the Chinese economic model:

-- A labyrinth of trade barriers. (The USA continues to reduce its protection of local business.)

-- An artificially undervalued currency.

-- An industrial policy that focuses on developing so-called pillar industries while using export subsidies and other unfair tactics to give them a competitive advantage in world markets.

-- Systematic pressure on foreign companies to transfer their most advanced production technology to China.

CASE IN POINT

China could be dealing a devastating blow in years ahead to the U.S. auto market, not to mention the overall U.S. economy, with the debut in December 2008 of the F3DM plug-in electric hybrid car in the Chinese market.



The car is heavily promoted by the Chinese government and looms as an economic threat on two counts: 1) It is beating General Motors' much-ballyhooed Chevy Volt to production by two years, and 2) it'll be substantially cheaper.



While many of China's announced plans are mostly hype and never come to fruition, this one looks quite believable.



The F3DM is manufactured by a firm in Shenzhen, China, called BYD, which just happens to be the world's second-largest producer of lithium-ion batteries for cell phones and laptops, and now has advanced to car batteries.



That's right ... the toughest nut to crack in the electric auto business ... the battery ... is locked up by this company, giving it a huge advantage. In contrast, the U.S. doesn't even have a plant that makes batteries for electric cars. Not even one.



BYD also has a track record with cars themselves as it makes two traditional small models ...the F3 and F0. The F3 was China's best-selling sedan in October (15,000 units).



The F3DM can run for 50 to 60 miles electrically and is combined with a small gas engine that takes over at that point and recharges the battery on the go. It has a top speed of about 100 mph. It sells for about $22,000, a price that the company would attempt to duplicate in the U.S. That compares to about $40,000 for the Volt. The company plans to roll out an upgraded version later this year, the e6, which could go 180 miles on a single charge.



The world market for electric cars will be much easier to enter than the one for conventional cars because it's much simpler to make an electric version. According to Wall Street Journal reporter Norihiko Shirouzo, who wrote about BYD in the Jan. 12 edition, the e6's motor will have just 210 primary parts. BYD's F6, a traditional gas-powered vehicle, has 1,400 parts in its powertrain.



BYD showed the F3DM at the Detroit Auto Show in January and plans to market the car in the U.S. in 2011. It probably would be a much bigger success here than in China as most Chinese live in apartment buildings that lack electrical outlets in the garages and parking lots, and outlets of sufficient amperage. Thus, charging stations would have to be built … something not needed in the U.S.



Of course, much can happen that could thwart BYD. The lithium-ion batteries have not been proven long-term, the car would have to pass U.S. crash tests and plugging your car into an outlet in your garage overnight is a new concept for Americans. The complete recharge would take seven hours.



Whether it could actually sell in the U.S. for $22,000 also is problematical as the cost in China is subsidized by the government in research and tax breaks.



But there's one guy ... one important, influential and very savvy guy ... who believes in the future of BYD. It's Warren Buffet. The MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. he controls is a 10 percent owner of BYD. It invested $230 million last September to become that.



P.S. If BYD works, it won't be an American success story but it'll be an American-style success story. The company's founder and chairman, Wang Chuanfu, grew up dirt poor as the son of rice farmers.



P.P.S. In a story that was terribly underplayed by the media, it looks like the U.S. finally will be getting an electric car battery plant. GM announced Jan. 12 that such a facility will be built in Michigan to supply the Volt. But while GM urges people to "Buy American," it failed to obey that slogan itself. It picked a Korean company, LG Chem Ltd., to supply the plant instead of an American competitor, A123 Systems Inc. of Watertown, Mass.

CHINA NOT SHY ABOUT FLEXING MUSCLE

China’s ruthlessness in using its economic clout was startlingly revealed in an antitrust lawsuit concerning Vitamin C in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, N.Y., as reported by John R. Wilke in the Nov. 25 Wall Street Journal.

China controls the market for that vitamin, widely used as a food additive.

The lawsuit, filed by Animal Science Products Inc., a Texas animal feed maker, claims that four Chinese companies conspired to undercut rivals for years with low prices … and then, after winning dominance in 2001, jacked the prices sharply upward.

The wholesale price of Vitamin C rose from $3 a kilogram in 2001 to $8 in 2003 and has climbed as high as $11 since then, resulting in correspondingly higher costs for U.S. consumers and companies.

Most unusual in this case is that China’s Ministry of Commerce filed a friend of the court brief. It not only admitted government involvement but also used it as a defense … in other words, it invoked the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

This means that since the companies were taking orders from the government to coordinate export prices and manufacturing output, they can’t be held liable.

Asked by Judge David Trager if the powers of the ministry could require price fixing for any industry, defense lawyer Joel Mitnick responded, “Yes, in theory, they could require price fixing for any industry.”

Notes taken by one of the company executives said if China lost the case, “the government would take the responsibility. After all, we need to do many things in a more hidden and smart way.”

Our advice: eat an orange.

P.S. China is hardly the only culprit in vitamin price-fixing escapades. Swiss, Japanese and German companies were found guilty of the same thing in the late 1990s.

But China also faces anti-trust charges over the prices of magnesite, used in steelmaking, in a case in U.S. District Court in Trenton, N.J. The same defense is being used: that the magnesite producers didn’t violate the law because they were acting under the orders of the Chinese government.

FAMOUSLY HIGH SAVINGS RATE

Fingleton notes that in capitalism, “authoritarian controls constitute a hindrance to full efficiency (but) such controls are essential to the functioning of the East Asian system. Therefore democracy has developed elaborate systems for dividing and breaking up power as a fact of life. It (Asia) has developed elaborate systems for insuring that power is used for the long-term national good."

He continues, “One way in which power is deployed to economic advantage in China -- as in other East Asian economies -- is in savings policy. China’s famously high savings rate is imposed on the nation from above."

How is this done?

Fingleton thinks westerners "suffer a crucial blind spot in that they assume that a nation's savings rate is determined by the millions of freely made decisions by individual savers. In reality, individual decision making has little to do with it. ... In their utterly un-western approach to savings and consumption, Chinese leaders boast a devastating secret weapon ... they established a highly ingenious, almost invisible administrative ability to force society to save."

He goes so far as to call it "one of the great turning points in world history. It is a fair bet that in its long-term geopolitical implications, it will prove the most consequential geopolitical change agent since Henry the Navigator launched the Age of Discovery in the Fifteenth Century."

The reason East Asians save is simple, he writes: "they are not allowed to consume." Various policies, many of them quite indirect, create this effect. They include trade barriers, credit controls, anti-consumer land policies, corporate price gouging and travel restrictions. To ensure the savings are invested productively, “Asian officials organize cartels and other devices to curb overcapacity and ensure that corporations' investment returns are adequate.” Presently USA bonds are doing this as the USA becomes more dependent on Chinese funds.

Selective enforcement is the main way China controls its people and businesses. The USA depends on known laws. Chinese laws are overly complete and detailed, but most are not enforceable or enforced ... until the government or Communist Party selects a target. Such action is absolutely illegal in the USA and prevented. Yet China’s control of its people and business depends on it. Most Chinese people understand there is no acceptance of opposition to the government, so they toe the line.

In China, there is no protection from public officials like we receive from the Fourth through Eighth amendments (protection from unreasonable search and seizure; protection of due process; criminal trial by jury and rights of the accused; civil trial by jury; prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment). China knows this is a huge advantage when competing, but our media and educators seldom discuss the advantages of our rule by known laws and penalties. Selective enforcement decided by the government of party is the opposite of democracy, but effective in most cases.

Our systems are directed to maximize freedom of the individual. Our press and people cannot visualize the extreme restrictions on individual freedom in China and the lack of restrictions on what the government can to the individual. Our press seldom mentions this because doing so would limit their future access to Chinese news sources. With such self-censoring, there is no way the American people can get a fair picture of our main opposition.

Without that government control, we may question if the Chinese people would accept the limitations on consumption. Certainly Americans would revolt before accepting consumption limitations, but we are so far in debt, that may be the only solution.

HOW TO COMPETE
As a nation, we must recognize our weaknesses and shore them up. Only disaster will come if we continue to ignore our debt problem. Some say the solution can wait 20 years. But unless we soon move toward correction, the loss of confidence in the dollar could destroy our economy in a couple years,

China and similar authoritarian regimes are winning the economic and political wars now underway. Until recently, they did not have the technology or organization to fight us. Now they do ... partly as the result of our giving them our production and technological knowhow.

Why did so many top American corporations do so? Americans started out with an almost infinitely strong negotiating position, Fingleton says, "but nonetheless proceeded to give away the store." Boardrooms "hungry for huge short-term profits have hitherto been prepared to ignore long-term negatives such as weakened control or valuable production and engineering secrets and a damaged public relations image in the American heartland (but) in the absence of the excess profits currently generated by their Chinese factories, a much more sober view would prevail."

The gift to China was made without “attaching human rights or other conditions” or collecting adequate compensation for the knowhow given. This may have done more damage to our future than any other error. The press, public and politicians have not yet adjusted to the realities of the new competition and the scary results.

Disadvantages our democracy must overcome in competing on the world scene:

-- Any winner must have a team that pulls together – our system nurtures fragmenting.

-- Finding fault with self – not protecting self.

-- We are fighting our own press to protect the country. Most of our opposition controls the press.

-- The willingness of corporations to give away knowhow at low cost to increase profits and bonuses.

-- Political fighting (egged on by media) saps the country and prevents timely or tough decisions.

-- Our system fragments the country by stressing differences instead of similarities within the population.

-- Making life easy became a USA goal by deficit borrowing and few politicians have the courage to say it or stop it.

-- The fear of our political leaders to admit these truths is the greatest weakness of our system.

BLOOKERS: You don't see a list of disadvantages of democracy very often. How do you react to this? Be sure to post your opinion.

Below is a comparison of the two systems ... American and Chinese. It shows the Chinese system is hugely different, with much less freedom of public action and thinking, but many advantages when competing commercially, politically or militarily. Unfortunately, the global results in the last few years favor the Confucian system over democracy.

How China's economy is Defeating the USA

 

[aelf]

So basically the conclusion is free market sucks? I agree.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

That whole Fascism>Democracy article is utter nonsense, I'm afraid. Their hopelessly corrupt administration would be unable to compete economically at all if it weren't for the fact that most of their population have wages and working hours equivalent to those of medieval serfs.

Once their economy comes remotely close to actually being wealthy and western companies move their operations to some other place where they can get semi-educated workers for peanuts, their growth will halt.

Then Chinese people are going to start asking awkward questions like "why are my taxes disappearing into the accounts of party members and their business pals?" and "why is there no functioning means of removing corrupt officials from their posts?" and then the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

 

[RedRalph]

That whole Fascism>Democracy article is utter nonsense, I'm afraid. Their hopelessly corrupt administration would be unable to compete economically at all if it weren't for the fact that most of their population have wages and working hours equivalent to those of medieval serfs.

Once their economy comes remotely close to actually being wealthy and western companies move their operations to some other place where they can get semi-educated workers for peanuts, their growth will halt.

Then Chinese people are going to start asking awkward questions like "why are my taxes disappearing into the accounts of party members and their business pals?" and "why is there no functioning means of removing corrupt officials from their posts?" and then the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

This is a pretty common fantasy among internet rightists, but its not going to happen.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

This is a pretty common fantasy among internet rightists, but its not going to happen.

So, of the three points:
-China's growth will slow dramatically once GDP per capita comes closer to 1st world standards.

-China's government is extremely corrupt.

-The population of China will react to flagging growth and the ineptitudes of their state with increasing calls for greater accountability leading to mounting opposition to the CPC and their removal from power.

Which one(s), do you consider to be fantasy?

 

[RedRalph]

So, of the three points:
-China's growth will slow dramatically once GDP per capita comes closer to 1st world standards.

-China's government is extremely corrupt.

-The population of China will react to flagging growth and the ineptitudes of their state with increasing calls for greater accountability leading to mounting opposition to the CPC and their removal from power.

Which one(s), do you consider to be fantasy?

On the first point, do you mean overall growth? why do you say that? did this happen in Ireland, Japan, South Korea, etc etc?

But in any case, the last one is a ridiculous assumption.

 

[Fayadi]

That whole Fascism>Democracy article is utter nonsense, I'm afraid. Their hopelessly corrupt administration would be unable to compete economically at all if it weren't for the fact that most of their population have wages and working hours equivalent to those of medieval serfs.

Once their economy comes remotely close to actually being wealthy and western companies move their operations to some other place where they can get semi-educated workers for peanuts, their growth will halt.

Then Chinese people are going to start asking awkward questions like "why are my taxes disappearing into the accounts of party members and their business pals?" and "why is there no functioning means of removing corrupt officials from their posts?" and then the whole house of cards will come crashing down.

Democracy is overrated I would say. The founding fathers of America even warned against it. The Senate was established with one of sole purpose to tone down Democracy. Senators (before the Constitution is changed sometime in the 20th century) were chosen by government officials rather than popular elections. Thus with the members of the legislative branch all chosen by popular election, we see more "populist policies" rather than "right policies". Such as spending money one didn't have and charging it to the next generation.

The Chinese government today is the same like how the Senate system back during the founding days. All its high ranking members would only rise if other government officials see one has ability. No member in the Chinese government is too high to be sacked. I live in Shanghai, China. Every month, there would be reports of how so and so government officials are sacked and imprisoned for corruption.


Having said that, I agree that a country needs to have strong rule of law to prosper. But a nation does not necessarily need to have a democracy to have a strong rule of law. Are judges popularly chosen by the people? Are the members of the Supreme Court elected by the people?

So basically the conclusion is free market sucks? I agree.

Uhmm. The article is saying about the growth of China. It also tells how the decisive government of China could play a constructive role in the development of China. It also says its government features does not have certain problems like US government faces. Nothing about free market failure.

A strange and wrong analysis considering China began to only have rapid economic growth after liberalizing its economy.

 

[aelf]

I don't think China is aiming for such growth forever. There are costs to it after all.

As for politics, I agree that political development and economic development do not necessarily correlate. Economically, China is subscribing to trickle-down economics so popular among neo-liberals, so in that way it is capitalist. It's also very susceptible to capitalism because of the existing patrimonial structures. It doesn't need to develop a plutocracy. It's ripe for plutocracy right away.

However, they're clearly not free-marketeers, but who said that capitalists necessarily favour free market anyway? They will abandon free market when it's convenient and, in fact, when they can to entrench themselves in a corporatist system that favours their established big businesses. But besides the hypocrisy of some free market advocates, it's also quite plain to me that a system that has no order is not going to prevail against a system that is ordered well. Allocation of resources can be very effective, so in that sense there's an element of command economy involved that has probably allowed China to grow rapidly. Heck, most industrialising countries did that, including Western countries. Free marketeers and free traders in the West just like to pretend that they are in any position to be preaching what they preach.

 

[aelf]

Democracy is overrated I would say. The founding fathers of America even warned against it. The Senate was established with one of sole purpose to tone down Democracy. Senators (before the Constitution is changed sometime in the 20th century) were chosen by government officials rather than popular elections. Thus with the members of the legislative branch all chosen by popular election, we see more "populist policies" rather than "right policies". Such as spending money one didn't have and charging it to the next generation.

The Chinese government today is the same like how the Senate system back during the founding days. All its high ranking members would only rise if other government officials see one has ability. No member in the Chinese government is too high to be sacked. I live in Shanghai, China. Every month, there would be reports of how so and so government officials are sacked and imprisoned for corruption.

You don't know your political history very well, I don't think.

Having said that, I agree that a country needs to have strong rule of law to prosper. But a nation does not necessarily need to have a democracy to have a strong rule of law. Are judges popularly chosen by the people? Are the members of the Supreme Court elected by the people.

Read more Weber. Basically, who will guarantee the rule of law? A rational-legal system can only work if the people can reason politically, and that implies political participation.

Uhmm. The article is saying about the growth of China. It also tells how the decisive government of China could play a constructive role in the development of China. It also says its government features does not have certain problems like US government faces. Nothing about free market failure.

A strange and wrong analysis considering China began to only have rapid economic growth after liberalizing its economy.

Liberalizing is relative. Also, the article basically stated that there are weaknesses to a system that fragments decision-making like the free market. So what I said is true. Read the article.

 

[Fayadi]

Liberalizing is relative. Also, the article basically stated that there are weaknesses to a system that fragments decision-making like the free market. So what I said is true. Read the article.

The articles talks about the government/political system of China. Not the economic system. Your first post in this thread is pretty much irrelevant.
Are you going to say Singapore is not practicing free market/capitalism too because of government meddling in how things are run? Seriously.
You can encourage pro-business or pro-trade policies by strong government hands too. That is not against the spirit of trade.

You don't know your political history very well, I don't think.

Vague statement. As usual.

You have shown to be prone to judging things you have no idea about time and time again:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

Article 1 Section 3 Clause 1 .

Seventeenth Amendment is the one that caused the change

 

[Fayadi]

Read more Weber. Basically, who will guarantee the rule of law? A rational-legal system can only work if the people can reason politically, and that implies political participation.

Singapore and Hong Kong are not democracies but they are one of the least corrupt states in the world according to Transparency International. So Democracy is not necessary once again.

 

[aelf]

The articles talks about the government/political system of China. Not the economic system. Your first post in this thread is pretty much irrelevant.
Are you going to say Singapore is not practicing free market/capitalism too because of government meddling in how things are run? Seriously.
You can encourage pro-business or pro-trade policies by strong government hands too. That is not against the spirit of trade.

Yes, Singapore is not running a free market system.

Vague statement. As usual.

You have shown to be prone to judging things you have no idea about time and time again:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

Article 1 Section 3 Clause 1 .

Seventeenth Amendment is the one that caused the change

Yes, I know about that and the Civil Service Act. The latter fits the bill better. If you imagine that the former is somehow inherently meritocratic, and that it is possible to equate it to the process of gaining political office in China, you're delusional.

Here's an excerpt from the same article:

This process worked without major problems through the mid-1850s, when the American Civil War was in the offing. Because of increasing partisanship and strife, many state legislatures failed to elect Senators for prolonged periods. For example, in Indiana the conflict between Democrats in the southern half of the state and the emerging Republican Party in the northern half prevented a Senate election for two years. The aforementioned partisanship led to contentious battles in the legislatures, as the struggle to elect Senators reflected the increasing regional tensions in the lead up to the Civil War.

Have a nice day.

Singapore and Hong Kong are not democracies but they are one of the least corrupt states in the world according to Transparency International. So Democracy is not necessary once again.

So you talk about corruption. I won't talk about Hong Kong, but I suspect that's bullcrap anyway, if Hong Kongers are to be believed. Now, about Singapore, I think nepotism is very closely related to corruption, if not actually part of it. The definition for corruption in official lists is just very narrow and the way to determine if something is an act of corruption very limited. The anti-corruption watchdog is supposed to be independent, right? In Singapore, it is; apparently. It reports directly to the Prime Minister's Office.

Come on. Traditional corruption is so backward and third world. The corporate first world has moved on to perks and exchange of contracts and of granting positions.

Also, a tyrant can be perfectly anti-corruption because it has great potential to wreck centralised authority. That still says nothing about rule of law. Also, whose laws? Rational-legal is a good name because it presumes a rational way of arriving at laws, and laws are more subject to whim and expedience when only a few people's reason can be applied in creating them.

 

[chauism]

So you talk about corruption. I won't talk about Hong Kong, but I suspect that's bullcrap anyway, if Hong Kongers are to be believed. Now, about Singapore, I think nepotism is very closely related to corruption, if not actually part of it. The definition for corruption in official lists is just very narrow and the way to determine if something is an act of corruption very limited. The anti-corruption watchdog is supposed to be independent, right? In Singapore, it is; apparently. It reports directly to the Prime Minister's Office.

Come on. Traditional corruption is so backward and third world. The corporate first world has moved on to perks and exchange of contracts and of granting positions.

Also, a tyrant can be perfectly anti-corruption because it has great potential to wreck centralised authority. That still says nothing about rule of law. Also, whose laws? Rational-legal is a good name because it presumes a rational way of arriving at laws, and laws are more subject to whim and expedience when only a few people's reason can be applied in creating them.

Why don't you want to talk about HK? Because its ICAC is considered one of the best anti-corruption agencies in the world, or is it because it has formulated an effective system to put checks and balances in place into its operations without democracy?
Experience of HK ICAC

Then why don't you talk about Taiwan, which many people think that its democracy should a model for PRC to follow, yet its administration under DPP was the most corrupted one in its history under the democratic system which got it into power. DPP came to power 2000 in large measure riding on an anti-corruption platform aim at KMT. However it soon become more corrupted than KMT. This happened according to opinion poll somewhere between midway to end of Chen's 1st term, but still he was elected for the second term. Twice in 2006 the legislature tried to remove Chen from office, but DPP continued to support him, thus the efforts failed even though more than half of the legislator voted for a recall.Taiwan ex-president Chen charged with corruption

 

[aelf]

Why don't you want to talk about HK? Because its ICAC is considered one of the best anti-corruption agencies in the world, or is it because it has formulated an effective system to put checks and balances in place into its operations without democracy?
Experience of HK ICAC

Because I don't really know the details about Hong Kong. But then, Hong Kong also has an active Triad that is apparently very influential in some circles and has been known to pay off the police.

Then why don't you talk about Taiwan, which many people think that its democracy should a model for PRC to follow, yet its administration under DPP was the most corrupted one in its history under the democratic system which got it into power. DPP came to power 2000 in large measure riding on an anti-corruption platform aim at KMT. However it soon become more corrupted than KMT. This happened according to opinion poll somewhere between midway to end of Chen's 1st term, but still he was elected for the second term. Twice in 2006 the legislature tried to remove Chen from office, but DPP continued to support him, thus the efforts failed even though more than half of the legislator voted for a recall.Taiwan ex-president Chen charged with corruption

Nobody said democracy can't be corrupt. On the bright side, though, the corruption tends to get exposed and discussed, instead of being officially entrenched like in non-democratic countries.

Look, corruption and anti-corruption has nothing to do with ideology or system of governance. I wasn't the one who brought it up. Authoritarian states can be corrupt or less corrupt, and similarly, democracy can be corrupt or less corrupt.