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

[devilhunterred]

I have a midterm coming up, I will make this short and concise.

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 they are. 20 years ago the PLAN’s submarine force was almost non-existent, save for plenty of underwater scraps that the USSR gave them during the Cold War. Fast forward to 20 years today, they are already designing and developing their own SSN.

Keep in mind that during the early 1900s before WWI, America also had a military that could only be laughed and mocked at comparing to the European powers. 45 years later after two world wars they emerge as the world’s dominant power on par with USSR. Speaking of USSR, Lenin and Stalin transformed Russia from a superannuated European state that could hardly feed itself in the 1910s to a global superpower that launched mankind’s very first satellite in 25 years’ time. Japan was arguably the weakest nation in Eastern Asia in the late 1800s, through 20 years of drastic modernization it was able to become a regional power, and eventually conquered most of Southeast Asia and gained status as one of the world’s most powerful military states alongside Nazi Germany. Mongolian horsemen were merely a divided tribesmen warring against themselves for survival of the harsh elements in the prairies in 1200s, under leadership of Khan, they transformed into the infamous “hell’s horsemen” that established the largest empire the world has ever seen in less than a century.

Extraordinary series of events that gave rise to nations occurred throughout history. China is the next “extraordinary event”.

“China is a sleeping giant, let her sleep. For when she wakes, she shall shake the world.” –Napoleon Bonaparte

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

China’s has one of the world’s longest shorelines along with Australia, Canada, Russia, Brazil, America, and a few other nations.

Australia, Brazil and Canada’s likelihood to be invaded in an imminent war is nearly nil. The majority of Russia’s shorelines are arctic ocean frozen by ice all year long, which makes them inaccessible to most ships. America has long deemed its former Cold War security measures of its eastern shorelines unnecessary since the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, and in contemporary times US face no naval threats on its Atlantic coasts against Al Qaeda or terrorist organizations.

This leaves China with one of the longest politically sensitive shorelines to defend against in the world.

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.

You seemed to have answered your own question. An attack sub is a specialized type of submarine that are designed to engage in combat with enemy subs and ships actively with cruise missiles. The Kilo isn’t built for that. Its main purpose is to defend and patrol waters, which makes it valuable for the Chinese as of now.

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.

You seem to have neglected the very fact that China would have completely destroyed the US economy before US subs have adequate time to defeat the PLAN and establish an effective sea blockade over the entire Chinese shoreline, which has always been the main point of this entire discussion.

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?

If the submarine has sonar, the capability to launch torpedoes, has radio to communicate with friendly aircrafts, subs, satellites and ships, it has ASW abilities. How else do you think ASW was conducted during WWII?

Furthermore, just as I have stated earlier. Outcome of a battle is depended on more than just the hardware.

An Afghan veteran using an AK47 was able to out-snipe Russian soldiers using SVD in the Soviet-Afghan war in a 1 km range. An American ace pilot was able to use WWII Mustang to shoot down several Soviet MiGs in the Korean War.

A weapon is only as effective as the user that is wielding it.

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.

Gooblah is right.

Nowhere have I ever stated that China has “super secret warheads”. My original statement was that Chinese nuclear weapons production has went underground and in secret since the 60s, and no intelligence agencies truly knows the accurate figure of the Chinese nuclear arsenal, as it’s not UN regulated.

Show me the statement where I said or even implied that China has “super secret ultimate warheads”. Show me. I dare you. If you can’t produce the evidence, don’t make stuff up that I have never said to reinforce your insubstantial argument. You are simply embarrassing yourself.

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

You sure you want to argue about this?

With its democratic structure, its method of contracting third party manufacturers for weapons development and production, a massive social paranoia fueled by armies of conspiracy theorists, extreme environmentalists, diehard cyber geeks and a constantly concerned public, the American military arguably has the “leakiest” and most explicit confidentiality in the world. The info of XM8, JST and various other weapons development programs were already leaked into the public before they were officially given green light. Keeping any “top secret” info secret at all, has and will always be a nightmare for the Pentagon if the infrastructure of the US military is not changed.

http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1796613

Yes, the leaked info is trivial, but this is truly something that can only happen to the US military.

On a more interesting note that I personally find amusing:

http://sarasota.indymedia.org/other-media/us-military-counter-insurgency-manual-leaked

The most hilarious thing is that the manual, just like most top secret military documents, has a destruction notice: Destroy by any method that must prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

LOL.

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?

Your original statement was that “[Russian subs are] wholly inferior in regards to contemporary Western designs”. To which I have already proven: not at all.

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.

I have also proven that electric-diesel subs are no less inferior than nuclear subs. Electric-diesel subs in fact provide several key advantages over nuclear subs, such as electric-diesel subs are smaller in sized, thus representing a smaller target in combat, they are much cheaper to build, and most importantly they have much better stealth abilities than nuclear subs.

Their sole difference lies in their separated usage.

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).

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.

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.

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.

You can claim to have “personal experience” and “expertise” in the navy all you like, but it doesn’t overturn what the article in the Daily Mail, one of UK’s largest national newspapers, stated:

“American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

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 a 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.
The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.”

From the Washington Times:

"The Kitty Hawk battle group includes two attack submarines and anti-submarine helicopters that are charged with protecting the warships from submarine attack."

Unless you can provide reliable sources to counter my evidence, your self-proclaimed "personal experience" in the navy is not justifiable to disclaim the articles.

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?

Running up to Shaq and grabbing the ball from him while he was in a training game would prove your basketball abilities to a respectable extent.

You realize that Japan and SK (the only bases the US have in range of Chinese missiles) hardly qualifies as "American interests worldwide."

American overseas bases are technically American soil. US military equipments are properties of the American government with the worth of millions. American soldiers are lives of the American people. If they are not considered American interests, I don't know what are considered American "interests" in America.

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

Espionage. Deplomacy. Political pressure. Financial blackmail. A great power like China has plenty of options to harm American intersets worldwide besides the likes of military.

And quite factually, China has better relations with South America, Africa and Middle East than US does.

They do need to return to refuel and rearm.

The refueling is minor as the diesel engine is only used on the surface anyways. Like I have previously stated, the battery it uses for submersion merely needs to be recharged by surfacing. Rearm? All subs, regardless of electric-diesel or nuclear, need to be rearmed once all its missiles and torpedoes run out.

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

Were you seriously saying that China has absolutely no measures to counter against American missile attacks?

To which, I have already proven and replied: China certainly can do something about American missile attacks.

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.

US is Japan's ally against what, exactly? Japan was merely once useful to the US for containing the assumed "spread of communism" in Asia during the Red Scare, and this became the foundation of reasoning upon which the American finanical assistance to the Japan rebuilding effort after the war was based on. Once the supposed Communist threat in Asia was non-existant and the American mass paranoia was proven to be nothing but social lunacy, all American funds to Japan were ceased. And from then on Japan-US relations were based upon solely on business and trades, nothing more. Japan still provides value to US as being a stepping stone to interfere with the Asian politics, while US provides the market for Japanese cars and commodities. But as China has replaced US as Japan's largest trading partner recently, US's value to Japan has dropped considerably.

Japan has no reasons at all to go to war against their largest customer.

And I would highly assume that you have never set foot on Japan, as you seem to lack the slightest idea of what the Anti-Ameicanism in Japan is all about. I have never been to South Korea, unfortunately, but I have heard of their Anti-Americanism is even stronger, and I can only imagine.

your illusions about "anti-americanism" have nothing to do with it.

Illusions? Perhaps you should come to Asia and witness some of the "illusional" protests and demonstrations for yourself.

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).

Chinese cruise missiles, just like all missiles, are built to fly and destroy targets. And with a range of 3000km with the Kh-55 missiles; unless my geographical knowledge is dead wrong, Thailand is well-within its range.

I think I quite understand what Chinese missiles are built to do. Unless, you wish to tell me otherwise that Chinese missiles are, in fact, built to launch fireworks in rainbow colors with a 3000km range.

Yes Thailand would happilly support a war against China to humble its dominance in the region, only in the shadows. It wouldn't dare to participate in the conflict at all as it would draw inevitable retailiation both militarily and deplomatically.

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?

Depending on its distance from Earth and its mass, an orbitting satellie has the speed of anywhere from 14000 mph to 18000 mph.

The alleged fastest missile in the world today, the Russian Tolpol RS 12, is claimed to be able to achieve the speed of 3350 meters/second, after the coversion, it's about 7490 mph.

I don't think I need to state what this implies concerning the Chinese ABM.

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.

Yea, if it's something that you haven't watched in the History or Discovery channel, it must be made up.

You claimed you knew of the Chinese development of nuclear bomb in the 60s, then I truly wonder how is it that you know nothing of the Chinese ABM program, which commenced immediately after their successful nuclear bomb production.

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.

Again, you seem to be downplaying the effect of a completely crashed American economy. One may, and indeed, should, ask the question: Would Americans still have the heart to engage in a full scale war after they have lost their life savings, pensions, houses and everything they have worked for their entire lives in an instant?

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

It's alright, although I have to say it didn't have the historical profound impact as the Watergate scandal, or how US orchestrated the entire Gulf of Tonkin episode for a justification to invade Vietnam in 64 under Johnson.

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

Yes, and I have traveled and lived in both extensively.

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

I have never "lectured" you on US citizenry.

Admit it. There is truth about US public not being able to accept large figures of casualties that you would agee on.

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

The difference is that I provide reliable sources such as national newspaper articles and definite figures to back up my claims.

You apply your "experience" in all situations that you do not have the answers to and disclaim all sources as false.

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.

Your statement stands at nothing.

Besides the $400 billion USD, the remaining 1.5 trillion worth of USD reserves are cash, investments, intangible assets that are untraceable, unseizeable, and are universally accepted in financial institutions worldwide, meaning, the ability to crash the US economy as they are all released into the market simultaneously.

In fact, China has already threatened to use the said tactics as a bargaining chip against US in the exchange table.

In 2006, the US planned to counter against the polarizing China-US trades by imposing a 27.5% tariff on all import goods from China. In response, China hinted it will release its then USD foreign reserves, worth about $850 USD billions, into the market if the protectionism mechanics are placed. Fully aware of the consequences of such actions, naturally, US officials decided to cancel the tariffs plan altogether and engaged in new talks with China.

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

Honestly. Increasing the ability of US to pay back an additional $400 billion USD bond when its international debt stands at more than $10 trillions is hardly significant.

Currently, US fed government is paying up more debt simply by printing out USD like mad, but any economist will tell you that with such solution in the long term US economy is simply and slowly digging its own grave.

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.

I'm not going to say this again. So read this carefully.

US can repossess the $400 billions bonds, but what will it do with the remaining $1.5 trillion USD worth of assets the US government can't seize?

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.

It's ironic you spek of common sense as if you are so full of it, when your own personl common sense can't even grasp the simple fact that: $1.5 trillion untraceable, unsiezeable USD released into the market at once = crashed US econmy.

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.

How much it will cost China? If all goes according to Beijing's plan, nothing.

The US economy has collapsed, whether or not the people and the government have the heart and means at all to fight a full-scale war is highly questionable. Yea, the Chinese economy will go to hell as well, but if all goes according to plan, China would be able to destroy US without firing a single bullet or suffering a hit on its own soil. An extremely amazing feat for a coutry that only 40 year ago, was in utter civil chaos.

As for the rest of your argument, they are trivial in the consequences of a complete US economy collapse.

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.

This argument can go both ways. Is there anything "special" about US besides being the world's largest consumer of every commodity goods? No.

Any nation with a decent GDP per capita can fill in this role. Nations like Canada, Denmark, Norway, Germany: All they lack is a larger population that isn't so focused on enviornmentalism and more on reckless consumerism.

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

Fine. Let's make comparisons.

It's widely agreed upon by enviornmentalists and military analysts worldwide that even a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would cause about a catastrophe to the ozone layer and the global enviornment. A nuclear exchange between China and US? The consequences can hardly be imaginable.

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

No. This can't be right, because according to your own previous statement, "a superpower has no peers", remember?

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.

Good job diverting the subject. We were talking about Britain supposingly bullying Prussia, France, and US supposingly bullying Middle East, and now you wish to talk about one of my idols Emperor Napoleon?

Sure, what do you want to talk about?

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.

Did you not make the claim that a "superpower has no peers"?

Aren't you now admiting that US and USSR, both superpowers, are peers?

So why are you even arguing?

 

[yesboii]

And I would highly assume that you have never set foot on Japan, as you seem to lack the slightest idea of what the Anti-Ameicanism in Japan is all about. I have never been to South Korea, unfortunately, but I have heard of their Anti-Americanism is even stronger, and I can only imagine.

Oh please, I was born in Japan and Anti-Americanism in Japan is not as strong as you make it out to be.

It only occasionally flairs up when stupid American soldiers do stupid things, like rape teenagers and the surge in Anti-Americanism is local and isolated to the area to where the event occurred.

Japanese people hold a DEEP respect for Americans. And there is way more respect for Americans than Chinese.

 

[chauism]

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.

Actually this was the main reason that ICAC was formed at the first place if you read the history of ICAC. Those things was on a rampage in the 70's. Everyone in the police force was taking bribes from triad, if you don't then you were sure not going to get alone with the others, and would be soon reassigned to patrol the boarders in some remote area, but after the establishment of ICAC, things started to clean up. However it was not without a struggle, the police force even sieged the ICAC building in the early days as protest. I hope you are not getting your image from watching some HK triad movies.

Despite steadfast service and efficiency levels which have grown steadily over 160 years life has not always been rosey. No administration anywhere in the world has ever been free of corruption in varying forms and severity. The spectre of corruption became prominent in HK in the 1960s, the HKP - as did almost every government department - experienced this and it peaked between 1962-74, involving officers of all ranks and ethnicities. Reasons? Motives and opportunities were many and varied, but mainly - 'motives' (poor pay and worries about Red China invading and abolishing pensions), and 'opportunities' (HK was enjoying vibrant economic progress and its industrious, self-starter people were forming thousands of small street-level businesses all ripe for 'protection').

During this time, the police, along with members of departments like Public Works, Fire, Transport et al. all had their own distinct methods of earning illicit income. The police were the offenders with the highest profile and it took the determined stance of Governor MacLehose together with Commissioner Sutcliffe to instigate the firmest of measures to eradicate syndicated corruption - and the establishment of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in 1974 was the prime one. After teething troubles, including a mass walkout by officers in 1977, by the early 1980s a combination of the ICAC, firm police management, better emoluments and an amnesty had succeeded in destroying the overall culture, removing powerful figures, educating against greed and increasing accountability. It would be foolish to deny that there is no corruption in any police force, but Hong Kong set an example to the world and for over 20 years the police in HK have been as clean as any force in the world - if not cleaner.

Hong Kong Police Force

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.

In case you are wondering about the media censorship and official cover up for its corrupted officers, here is something you should have a look at. There several cases like this one last year in China.
Human Flesh Search—China-Style Anti-corruption

 

[chauism]

If the submarine has sonar, the capability to launch torpedoes, has radio to communicate with friendly aircrafts, subs, satellites and ships, it has ASW abilities. How else do you think ASW was conducted during WWII?

Not necessarily though, Romeo or Ming class sub was designed without the capability of ASW, but with varies upgrade it can perform ASW. Not every torpedoes are for ASW, some are only for engaging surface ship only, and some are only for ASW only. However the first ASW torpedo China have developed was only intended for use on the nuclear submarine Han SSN and Xia SSBN. To my knowledge, most of the Ming and Romeo Class sub in PLAN had been retired for some time already, some of them were only retained as training vessels. By the time China had developed and mass produce its first ASW torpedo for diesel subs Yu-5 in the 90's, Romeo and Ming were also about to retire. So it is more than likely that those subs were without any ASW capabilities.

BTW, during WW II submarine rarely or almost never engaged in any ASW missions as its sonar and guided torpedoes' sophistication or its lack of.

 

[aelf]

Actually this was the main reason that ICAC was formed at the first place if you read the history of ICAC. Those things was on a rampage in the 70's. Everyone in the police force was taking bribes from triad, if you don't then you were sure not going to get alone with the others, and would be soon reassigned to patrol the boarders in some remote area, but after the establishment of ICAC, things started to clean up. However it was not without a struggle, the police force even sieged the ICAC building in the early days as protest. I hope you are not getting your image from watching some HK triad movies.

Hong Kong Police Force

In case you are wondering about the media censorship and official cover up for its corrupted officers, here is something you should have a look at. There several cases like this one last year in China.
Human Flesh Search—China-Style Anti-corruption

Like I said, I don't know the exact details about Hong Kong. With the lack of knowledge, I go by what some people, including Hong Kongers have said. Remember the scandal in the movie industry? The guy in the middle of it has apparently angered a powerful underworld faction or two with his antics. Underworld elements seem to have a strong hand in the big Hong Kong entertainment industry. I call that pretty influential, and it's existence must owe somewhat to corruption.

Face it, official or nominal pictures of squeaky clean differs from the real. I have already shown you that despite statistics, Singapore is actually not clean. But some of these forms of corruption, though wrong, are seen as somewhat acceptable. To incentivise government and big leadership jobs, so to speak. Hey, it's FAL favourite theory that class system fosters competition. But any competent student of history or politics knows that class system only sometimes masquerades as a rewards system, when it actually seeks to preserve the established elite and thus destroy competition and social mobility. People can say or even mean one thing but are actually doing another.

 

[aelf]

Missed out this:

In case you are wondering about the media censorship and official cover up for its corrupted officers, here is something you should have a look at. There several cases like this one last year in China.
Human Flesh Search—China-Style Anti-corruption

Sure, why not? An authoritarian government does need to go on a righteous manhunt sometimes. How many times do you think the Soviet Union went after undesirable, in all senses of the word, elements in its government? Clearly, the media is going to be involved in these efforts, and that does give some impression of transparency.

But the crucial question here is accountability. Is the government easily accountable, or only risks the sometimes mythical mass uprising when it fails to serve the people? The answer will give you a clue about the real motives of the government. An effective democracy constrains the government, limiting the scope of its ability to do things with nefarious motives.

Now, I'm not going to say that democracy is absolutely better, much less liberal democracy. In reality, YMMV. Democracy can't guarantee a good government. However, democracy is better in principle in terms of justice, because democracy helps to ensure that bad governments don't stay around for too long. Of course, the end result could be similar if it fails to produce a good government thereafter, but which are you going to place your bets on? For every successful authoritarian state, you get ten, maybe a hundred failed ones. I think democracy's track record is slightly better. Democracy gives you more hope for change, especially one that you have a hand in effecting, authoritarian governments do not.

 

[a_propagandist]

Being Chinese-American, I am really gonna suffer, aren't I?

Damn, both sides have their flaws here.

Subscription post. I'll jump in later.

 

[Fadi]

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.

But a country with less or more corruption is an indication whether the rule of law is working effectively or not. Please stop dancing around. You said that authoritarian countries have a questionable method of enforcing a good rule of law. I have showed you an example that rule of law does work effectively(Transparency International's least corrupt states ranking of Singapore and Hong Kong).
Now you are giving me these unproven "nepotism" and "triad" theories out of determination to further your shaky point. Hardly a trait for a rational person engaged in a discussion.

It is an irony to call Singapore's government is riddled with nepotism when all of its officials are indeed competent people. I would have to say there very few examples in which a country could rise from third-world( a country with no natural resources) to first in less than 1 generation. If they are that corrupt and nepotistic, such achievements would not be made or maybe you don't think those are achievements which will make you an anti-world ideologue to dismiss such achievements.

You like to criticize regularly but have done nothing constructive yourself and you only can give worse alternatives (like Socialism and Affirmative Action ). Until you can give "correct" solutions, your criticism will fall on deaf ear.

About the Senate history, in the first place you accused me of misunderstanding the history. Well apparently I don't. Senator before Constitution Amendment are indeed chosen by government officials.
It is in my opinion this kind of system is more meritocratic.
You might judge my opinion but not my history knowledge. You are playing the wrong game dude. But that was expected out of you. I am not surprised. Soon everyone will get tired of you... Anyway, I would refrain from directly quoting you in future posts.

 

[Fadi]

Being Chinese-American, I am really gonna suffer, aren't I?

Damn, both sides have their flaws here.

Subscription post. I'll jump in later.

It would be best if US and China has an alliance. There is nothing much of a conflict in fundamental interest outside of Taiwan issue. The Chinese love the Americans for their buyers, the Americans are better off with Chinese financing. Why can't we become allies again? Especially when both countries' people love globalization more than the Europeans and the Japanese.

 

[Fadi]

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.

President Ford pardoning of President Nixon is not officially entrenching corruption?

Al Yamamah case in UK is not an example of officially entrenching corruption in democratic countries?

You are just not that well-informed to make those kind of general statements. Stop giving general statements when you simply don't have the knowledge to back it up.

Who says corrupt officials in authoritarian countries are not exposed and discussed in public? I have seen cases of Singapore government officials being prosecuted for corruption (although very rare) being reported in the local media. I currently reside in Shanghai and I read the local papers. Who says that government officials corrupt action are not disclosed in the media openly?

In conclusion, your analysis is inconsistent with the truth and flawed.

 

[aelf]

But a country with less or more corruption is an indication whether the rule of law is working effectively or not. Please stop dancing around. You said that authoritarian countries have a questionable method of enforcing a good rule of law. I have showed you an example that rule of law does work effectively(Transparency International's least corrupt states ranking of Singapore and Hong Kong).

Stop wasting my time. I did not state that there is no rule of law in authoritarian countries. I asked who will guarantee the rule of law. Your authoritarian government? Why do you trust it?

Besides, as I've said, corruption itself says nothing about the rule of law. Whether there is corruption or not does necessarily indicate that there is a rule of law or not. An absolute monarch can rule by decree but be strongly anti-corruption.

Now you are giving me these unproven "nepotism" and "triad" theories out of determination to further your shaky point. Hardly a trait for a rational person engaged in a discussion.

You're such a laugh. You can't discuss anything and can only resort to ad homs.

It is an irony to call Singapore's government is riddled with nepotism when all of its officials are indeed competent people. I would have to say there very few examples in which a country could rise from third-world( a country with no natural resources) to first in less than 1 generation. If they are that corrupt and nepotistic, such achievements would not be made or maybe you don't think those are achievements which will make you an anti-world ideologue to dismiss such achievements.

Wowowow. Fallacies a million here. So a nepotistic country can't succeed economically? So an economically successful country can't be nepotistic? Please prove what you're saying.

You like to criticize regularly but have done nothing constructive yourself and you only can give worse alternatives (like Socialism and Affirmative Action ). Until you can give "correct" solutions, your criticism will fall on deaf ear.

Correct, schmorrect. Correct according to whom? To you?

Yeah, my criticism will fall on deaf ears here. You must have shouted yourself deaf about how good your worldview is.

About the Senate history, in the first place you accused me of misunderstanding the history. Well apparently I don't. Senator before Constitution Amendment are indeed chosen by government officials.
It is in my opinion this kind of system is more meritocratic.
You might judge my opinion but not my history knowledge. You are playing the wrong game dude. But that was expected out of you. I am not surprised. Soon everyone will get tired of you... Anyway, I would refrain from directly quoting you in future posts.

Read the extract from the wiki article you referred to. Still no clue? Let me tell you: It's politics, not meritocracy.

You can ignore me if you want. I'm perfectly fine with it. You waste my time anyway. Who is "everyone" anyway? You mean your cronies? Yeah, all of you should just ignore me if you have nothing substantial to say. Will save me a lot of time not having to debate pointlessly with experts like you.

 

[aelf]

President Ford pardoning of President Nixon is not officially entrenching corruption?

I think you'd be hard pressed to say that that is entrenching corruption, though it is perpetuating it. Americans can take this up with you.

Al Yamamah case in UK is not an example of officially entrenching corruption in democratic countries?

You are just not that well-informed to make those kind of general statements. Stop giving general statements when you simply don't have the knowledge to back it up.

You're really wasting my time.

Again, did I say democratic countries can't be corrupt? You might want to read my posts again. I've given a very balanced account of the realities of political systems.

Who says corrupt officials in authoritarian countries are not exposed and discussed in public? I have seen cases of Singapore government officials being prosecuted for corruption (although very rare) being reported in the local media. I currently reside in Shanghai and I read the local papers. Who says that government officials corrupt action are not disclosed in the media openly?

You can keep beating the air if you want. Singapore does not have corruption in the traditional sense. It doesn't do things that way. Of course, when old-style corruption does happen, it's going to be a prime target for a ruling elite that is eager to show its righteousness. That doesn't prevent them from exchanging favours, though. There is a spoils system at work there, only the spoils never really exit the same circles.

In conclusion, your analysis is inconsistent with the truth and flawed.

I've seen this line like 10 times, but they're still funny.

 

[Fadi]

Besides, as I've said, corruption itself says nothing about the rule of law. Whether there is corruption or not does necessarily indicate that there is a rule of law or not . An absolute monarch can rule by decree but be strongly anti-corruption.

President in democratic countries are immune to persecution without undergoing impeachment process. That immunity from persecution technically is a proof that head of state in democratic countries is above the law. So are you going to say that there is no rule of law because President cannot be arrested?
But that is not what we mean by the rule of law isn't it?
A good rule of law means everyone is treated equally before the law.
Some high members of the government might be off-limit to the law but they still can get arrested in extraordinary circumstances. Same like in USA or China alike. USA rule of law is far more developed. But my point is I don't believe Chinese rule of law cannot develop to match those of developed countries just because it has an authoritarian government.
When corruption is low, it indicates that cases in which some people are treated above the law is low. I don't see how this could be difficult to understand.

Wowowow. Fallacies a million here. So a nepotistic country can't succeed economically? So an economically successful country can't be nepotistic? Please prove what you're saying.

Definition of Nepotism: Nepotism is the showing of favoritism toward relatives based upon that relationship, rather than on an objective evaluation of ability or suitability.

Singapore is not your typical natural-resources-rich country that can grow rich without taking developing its human resources. If indeed the government are choosing people based on relationship rather than "ability". We would see an incompetent government.
Incompetent government + A country with no natural resources = A typical third-world country.
An Arab country rich in oil with nepotism can grow rich as it is easy for them to become rich. The whole world needs oil to survive. Saudi Arabia is producing oil at a cost of $2/barrel, and take a look at how much the world market is willing to pay.
But not for Singapore which has to overcome a lot of odds.

By the way, Lee Hsien Loong and Ho Ching are a zillion times smarter than you. The audacity to criticize high members of the government for being "nepotistic". They have shown real results. What have you?

Correct, schmorrect. Correct according to whom? To you?

Yeah, my criticism will fall on deaf ears here. You must have shouted yourself deaf about how good your worldview is.

At least I am not trapped in a time-warp to believe in Socialism and Affirmative Action. Take Malaysia for example. It is a rapidly developing country and as they modernize there have been calls to end the Affirmative Action. Even modernist like Mahathir Mohammed has called for it. When other countries have been trying to end failed policies, you are trying to implement them. If that is not silly and incorrect thinking, what is?

I don't even need to talk about your idea of "equality of results". You admitted yourself that it is unrealistic and yet you advocate people to strive for it.
Flying like a superman is unrealistic but doesn't mean one should not strive for it, according to Aelf's ideology

Read the extract from the wiki article you referred to. Still no clue? Let me tell you: It's politics, not meritocracy.

You must be dancing around as usual


What historical facts I have given?
-That senators are chosen by government officials before Constitution Amendment.

What did you say to me?
-That my historical fact is wrong (By saying I did not know my history well, this is the meaning you are trying to convey in simpler terms).

You are now backpedaling and talking about meritocracy to change the focus of the discussion once you realize what you said in the beginning was incorrect and you didn't dare to admit it.

Definition of meritocracy: Meritocracy is a system of a government or another organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated talent and ability (merit), rather than by wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege (oligarchy), friends (cronyism), seniority (gerontocracy), popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power.

I said the original Senate system is better in the sense that they are not directly accountable to public opinion. Anyone that reads regularly about news and current affairs will know that populous policies are state-bankrupting and more often than not brings policies that bring short-term gain but long-term consequences.
Back then, Senators are chosen by other government officials rather than popular election. Government officials who truly serve the interest of the public would truly want to choose someone whom is capable enough to "understand how things works"(or more capable in other words) to represent them for their state.
I was not talking it in the sense that it is more meritocratic in the first place.
But whether it is more directly accounted to public opinion or not.

Since you mentioned it somehow later, I realized myself that the meritocracy mechanism is more evident in the original system as it allows a greater chance of someone who "understand how things works" to be chosen for Senator rather than a system in which Senators are chosen by the people.
Meritocracy is relevant here anyway (since you bring that in although it is not my intention in the first place)

You can ignore me if you want. I'm perfectly fine with it. You waste my time anyway. Who is "everyone" anyway? You mean your cronies? Yeah, all of you should just ignore me if you have nothing substantial to say. Will save me a lot of time not having to debate pointlessly with experts like you.

I implore you to go to Flat Earth Society Forum because these people will entertain your hobby of being delusional. Anyway you don't have the qualities of being a debater, the irony for calling "debate"

Again, did I say democratic countries can't be corrupt? You might want to read my posts again. I've given a very balanced account of the realities of political systems.

Dancing again.
You said democratic countries tend to be more open in exposing corruption cases than authoritarian countries. That is not true. There are cases of exposing corruption in both system and there are cases of entrenching it in both system. It is wrong of you to make general statement with shaky foundation and my point is you have to stop doing it. Wow even an elementary school kid can understand

I've seen this line like 10 times, but they're still funny.

Your views are misguided and you refuse to correct them. Fine, continue being delusional.

I have enough entertainment and I will stop .

 

[aelf]

President in democratic countries are immune to persecution without undergoing impeachment process. That immunity from persecution technically is a proof that head of state in democratic countries is above the law. So are you going to say that there is no rule of law because President cannot be arrested?

Again, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that the president is above the law. That he has to be impeached first does not preclude his being within the law.

But that is not what we mean by the rule of law isn't it?
A good rule of law means everyone is treated equally before the law.
Some high members of the government might be off-limit to the law but they still can get arrested in extraordinary circumstances. Same like in USA or China alike. USA rule of law is far more developed. But my point is I don't believe Chinese rule of law cannot develop to match those of developed countries just because it has an authoritarian government.

Well, I think you can have a rule of law in an authoritarian system. But what is there to guarantee it? Democracy offers more hope here, and the lack of one would at least be partly the fault of the citizens. In an authoritarian system, you have no control and no responsibility.

I don't want to have to repeat this again.

When corruption is low, it indicates that cases in which some people are treated above the law is low. I don't see how this could be difficult to understand.

This is so presumptuous, it's laughable. What if they commit other crimes besides corruption? Just because corruption is cracked down on, they are not above the law then?

I repeat one more time. Corruption threatens centralised power, and thus some cruel tyrants also crack down on corruption (though generally not nepotism). This says nothing about the rule of law.

Definition of Nepotism: Nepotism is the showing of favoritism toward relatives based upon that relationship, rather than on an objective evaluation of ability or suitability.

Your point being?

Singapore is not your typical natural-resources-rich country that can grow rich without taking developing its human resources. If indeed the government are choosing people based on relationship rather than "ability". We would see an incompetent government.
Incompetent government + A country with no natural resources = A typical third-world country.
An Arab country rich in oil with nepotism can grow rich as it is easy for them to become rich. The whole world needs oil to survive. Saudi Arabia is producing oil at a cost of $2/barrel, and take a look at how much the world market is willing to pay.
But not for Singapore which has to overcome a lot of odds.

Oh, so if you practice nepotism, it must be 100% nepotism? You choose all the bureaucrats based on nepotism?

Funny, the rapid development of the Indonesian economy occurred during a regime that was highly steeped in nepotism. But according to you, that's impossible. But natural resources, you say? Has it not occurred to you that strategic location is also a resource? Do you not know that Singapore is an important port city?

By the way, Lee Hsien Loong and Ho Ching are a zillion times smarter than you. The audacity to criticize high members of the government for being "nepotistic". They have shown real results. What have you?

What sort of argument is this? Appeal to authority of the worst kind. It's also a classic argument used to silence criticism. Epic fail.

Thanks for the comedy. Now everyone can see that you have no substance whatsoever.

At least I am not trapped in a time-warp to believe in Socialism and Affirmative Action. Take Malaysia for example. It is a rapidly developing country and as they modernize there have been calls to end the Affirmative Action. Even modernist like Mahathir Mohammed has called for it. When other countries have been trying to end failed policies, you are trying to implement them. If that is not silly and incorrect thinking, what is?

Malaysia's racial policy is Affirmative Action? Shows you either don't understand the terminology or simply buy any propaganda at face value. Or both. Affirmative action for a majority race that is in control of the country's politics and resources? If that's not absurd, what is?

I don't even need to talk about your idea of "equality of results". You admitted yourself that it is unrealistic and yet you advocate people to strive for it.

Flying like a superman is unrealistic but doesn't mean one should not strive for it, according to Aelf's ideology

Let's see... World peace is pretty unrealistic by most accounts. So people shouldn't strive for it?

Thanks for the comedy again.

You must be dancing around as usual

What historical facts I have given?
-That senators are chosen by government officials before Constitution Amendment.

What did you say to me?
-That my historical fact is wrong (By saying I did not know my history well, this is the meaning you are trying to convey in simpler terms).

You are now backpedaling and talking about meritocracy to change the focus of the discussion once you realize what you said in the beginning was incorrect and you didn't dare to admit it.

Definition of meritocracy: Meritocracy is a system of a government or another organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated talent and ability (merit), rather than by wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege (oligarchy), friends (cronyism), seniority (gerontocracy), popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power.

I said the original Senate system is better in the sense that they are not directly accountable to public opinion. Anyone that reads regularly about news and current affairs will know that populous policies are state-bankrupting and more often than not brings policies that bring short-term gain but long-term consequences.
Back then, Senators are chosen by other government officials rather than popular election. Government officials who truly serve the interest of the public would truly want to choose someone whom is capable enough to "understand how things works"(or more capable in other words) to represent them for their state.
I was not talking it in the sense that it is more meritocratic in the first place.
But whether it is more directly accounted to public opinion or not.

Since you mentioned it somehow later, I realized myself that the meritocracy mechanism is more evident in the original system as it allows a greater chance of someone who "understand how things works" to be chosen for Senator rather than a system in which Senators are chosen by the people.
Meritocracy is relevant here anyway (since you bring that in although it is not my intention in the first place)

Did you read the extract? It states that there were problems with the system because politics determined who got the positions. Is that meritocracy? Politicians choosing who should get the positions is more meritocratic than the people choosing who should govern them? Are you dreaming?

You aren't even dancing. You're tripping all over yourself.

I implore you to go to Flat Earth Society Forum because these people will entertain your hobby of being delusional. Anyway you don't have the qualities of being a debater, the irony for calling "debate"

As usual, no substance, only empty ad homs.

Dancing again.
You said democratic countries tend to be more open in exposing corruption cases than authoritarian countries. That is not true. There are cases of exposing corruption in both system and there are cases of entrenching it in both system. It is wrong of you to make general statement with shaky foundation and my point is you have to stop doing it. Wow even an elementary school kid can understand

Nope. The truth is you don't understand politics. So you think you're worse than an elementary school kid?

It is very plain that political wrongdoings are more easily exposed in a working democracy. Why, no one has absolute control, so no one can cover it up as easily. How simple is that idea?

Your views are misguided and you refuse to correct them. Fine, continue being delusional.

I have enough entertainment and I will stop .

That's what you always say, but you keep coming back to get whipped. And the more desperate you are, the funnier you get. The entertainment is only beginning If this didn't take up any time at all, it'd be perfect.

 

[devilhunterred]

Oh please, I was born in Japan and Anti-Americanism in Japan is not as strong as you make it out to be.

It only occasionally flairs up when stupid American soldiers do stupid things, like rape teenagers and the surge in Anti-Americanism is local and isolated to the area to where the event occurred.

Japanese people hold a DEEP respect for Americans. And there is way more respect for Americans than Chinese.

Yesboii, when was the last time you returned to Japan? And when did the rape incident occur? Honestly speaking during my residence in Asia I haven't heard of the incident. Although, I did heard of the incident where a young Japanese girl was killed by American soldiers in drunk driving accident on Christmas Eve or some special occassions. It caused quite a sensation in Japan as it wasn't the fiirst misconduct of American troops' behavior in the island nation.

I was in Japan for several months during 2006 and witnessed two anti-Americanism "Oyuku" protests and demonstrations in Tokyo, with slogans and signs such as "Down with American influence", "America is the world's largest terrorist" and "Stand up against American imperialism" (My friend translated them for me).

Japan and South Korea contain the most numbers of protesters in Asia against the US war in Iraq.

Yesboii when did you move to US? How long have you been living in LA? You have been exposed to American culture extensively, your respect towards America is understandable.

Nonetheless, most of the Japanese I have talked to confessed of wanting nothing to do with America, especially in the field of politics. They certainly also wish for the Ameriacn influence and military prescence in their nation to cease.

During my stay in Hong Kong when speaking of my anti-Americanism experience in Japan, my Korean friend told me that anti-Americanism is even stronger and more intense in SK.

Anti-Americanism is frequently depicted and celebrated in South Korean popular culture such as movies and music; Americans are often portrayed as the "evil characters" that are responsible for creation and mutation of monsters in SK sci-fi films; there is even an anti-America rap song called "F*** USA", which is quite a hit, especially after the incident where 2 Korean children were crushed and killed by a US military vehicle.


[Edit: I have found the rape incident on Wiki]:

"From 1952 to 2004, there have been 200,000 accidents and crimes committed by the U.S. soldiers, which killed 1,076 Japanese civilians. Over 90% of the incidents were vehicle or traffic related. According to the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement U.S. personnel have partial extraterritorial right, so in most cases suspects were not arrested. In 1995, the abduction and rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan schoolgirl by two U.S. Marines and one U.S. sailor led to demands for the removal of all U.S. military bases in Japan. Other controversial incidents include helicopter crashes, the Girard incident, and the Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident. In February 2008, a 38-year-old U.S. Marine based on Okinawa was arrested in connection with the reported rape of a 14-year-old Japanese girl."

It's not surprising as to why anti-Americanism is so fierce in Japan.

 

[El Koeno]

Yay! Discussions about submarines, and flamewars about Hong Kong corruption in a thread about the dollar reserves of China. I like the internet...

 

[aelf]

Did you actually read anything, or do you assume that everything is just rubbish because it's teh internetz?

 

[yesboii]

Yesboii, when was the last time you returned to Japan? And when did the rape incident occur?

I was back in Japan in the summer of 08, in and out of the Tochigi prefecture for months and around Tokyo for a couple of weeks.

And when did the rape incident occur?

You found several examples.

Japan and South Korea contain the most numbers of protesters in Asia against the US war in Iraq.

Really now? Even more than China?

Yesboii when did you move to US? How long have you been living in LA? You have been exposed to American culture extensively, your respect towards America is understandable.

I've been in the US for about 8 years give or take. I remember how I heard about how great America was and so-on and so-forth from my parents. (Most of which turned out to be false, unfortunately..

Nonetheless, most of the Japanese I have talked to confessed of wanting nothing to do with America, especially in the field of politics. They certainly also wish for the Ameriacn influence and military prescence in their nation to cease.

Strangely, I heard the exact opposite in Otawara, my hometown. If I remember correctly, the only people with problems with the American military bases are the areas nearby those bases, especially Okinawa.

Here's a link that says most Japanese citizens appreciate American bases for security reasons.

http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h14/h14-bouei/2-6.html

Anti-Americanism is not fierce in Japan. Japanese people love Americans. Perhaps the people you were talking to were mainly American haters. If you talk to most Japanese people in Japan, they will have nothing but great respect for American culture and American people.

And besides, if Japan wanted the US off its soil, you don't think it would have happened by now? The Japanese Self-Defense Forces are one of the most well-funded militaries in the world. Its not like we are sitting ducks without the US.

 

[yesboii]

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.

Yeah, explain this one to me too. The free market is a better allocator of resources than any command economy, unless the command economy was headed by God, and even with God behind this command economy, its efficiency would only be equal to that of the free market.

 

[aelf]

How can centrally planned economy be effective? How can allocation of resources be effective without a common price system in all areas? How can government know which investment is good and compare it with others in terms of returns if there is no free market to determine the prices of the areas the government decides to invest in anyway?

Yeah, explain this one to me too. The free market is a better allocator of resources than any command economy, unless the command economy was headed by God, and even with God behind this command economy, its efficiency would only be equal to that of the free market.

By allocation I meant the purposeful or planned allocation of resources.

When you're talking about a free market, are you sure you're not just simply talking about the market? Free market implies minimal government intervention. The difference, of course, is in the degree.

Note that what I mentioned were elements of command economy. What I meant was the government actually diverting resources into certain sectors according to a plan to achieve certain goals. Some people who profess to support a free market might not be entirely opposed to this (albeit a little strangely to me), while others cringe at the mere mention of government intervention.

The classic objections to command economy have been done to death. Ultimately, the conclusion is the government may or may not know better. The alternative is a collective group of individuals who are unlikely to think in terms of the big picture and the long term. Both are liable to make bad decisions. Sometimes, the government can clearly make better decisions.