RE: China's nationalism mutating into aggression
June 29, 2013 at 6:00 pm
(This post was last modified: June 29, 2013 at 6:05 pm by Creed of Heresy.)
Ok, now, here's why I am saying I don't buy into the idea that China's economy is going to overtake the US's.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100849458
Now, I am aware that Gatestone is neocon [seriously, did you and Cratehorus just pull a fucking poison-the-well fallacy on me?? NOT a good way to start a debate, guys!], but if a neocon brings up a good point, I have to concede with it. Slapping a "neocon" label onto something doesn't immediately invalidate it, the point itself has to be faulty. To address the claims of their ownership of land, can I please get an explanation, then, as to why they're encroaching on Indian lands? Far as I can recall, India doesn't hold land that China has in recent history. Technically, there's a bunch of area in the southwestern US that Mexico has claims to from over a century ago, but even though those areas tend to be loaded with republitards I still wouldn't say that they would be justified if they invaded in the name of reclaiming land that they haven't lived in in over a century [well...in a geopolitical sense at any rate]. Saying "they have historical claims to land" doesn't hold any merit when you consider that if we used that justification, there'd be dozens of nations that would be completely justified in suddenly invading their neighbors. Geopolitical borders have shifted hands all over the place over the course of human history for tons of reasons. If you used that justification as a valid excuse then if Finland was invaded by Russia then they'd be totally justified. If China invaded the Korean peninsula [after all they had claim to it...millenia ago] it'd be totally justified. That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard for justification and it gets lamer the more time passes in between the land being lost and being "reclaimed." The world changes very rapidly over the course of a mere decade. I'm not saying that the initial theft of land is justified, but two wrongs don't make a right, especially in a world where conflicts arise over these parcels of land between two or more nuclear-armed nations. That sort of shit doesn't fly.
You also failed to address the fact that China's been openly talking about how they wish to engage the US in open conflict. That's kind of a major thing given the potential for bloodshed if this were to happen. It sounds like you're saying China's just fine, they're a wonderful nation and everything's hunky-dory when, uh, no, no it is not. It is none of those things. Its human-rights abuses are many and constant. The US is far from innocent in that regard [I'm looking at yoooouuuu, Gitmo!], but China's recent list comes up a lot more bloody than the US. I am willing to concede that this might just be nationalism on my part, but I didn't support the war in Iraq. I didn't support the way the war in Afghanistan was waged. I definitely would not have supported the Vietnam war had I been around at the time. I don't agree with military belligerence in general unless there's a damn good reason for it. US involvement in WWII I definitely agree with and in such circumstances I wouldn't hesitate to support our involvement and militarization. We have not attacked China. We haven't ground their economy into the ground. We haven't infringed on their sovereign rights except for a few spy planes that flew over their country when they were weaponizing nuclear materials [one of which was shot down as I recall], and you just try to convince me that China hasn't been infringing on OUR sovereign rights endlessly and blatantly for the last 20 years via the internet, just try to so I can have a huge belly laugh. This sabre-rattling bullshit isn't justified. Now, however, I am willing to concede I might be overlooking something, and if you can provide some kind of justification for it, I'll be happy to accept it.
Is this enough for you, Chuck? Is this "valid and coherent" enough for you? Personally, I would much rather prefer China remain a militarily-quiet, economics-centric nation that does become a superpower in that way. It would be a very good template to show how to properly rise to power and influence in ways that don't require tons of bloodshed and violence. And up until recently it seemed to be going that route. Problem was their policies of endless borrowing and the disappointing returns have been constantly eroding that hope, and now as a result, they're turning to the idea of military power to make up for it.
So, my conclusion remains the same and might do so if all I get in return from this is more contrarianism without actually addressing the key factors, which, I'm afraid, is all you managed to bring to bear.
This is my fervent hope. The alternative is a nightmare.
Well, Russia...not so much. Russia doesn't have much interest in going to war in general. Their economy isn't nearly stable enough to deal with a major war between global powers, and despite the immense levels of corruption in their higher echelons of government I don't think they'd be willing to risk shattering their nation's shaky economy by participating in a war that wouldn't be of much benefit to them at all. I WOULD, however, state that Iran is an ally you forgot to list. Iran's all but just waiting for an excuse at this point. If it turns out North Korea ISN'T a puppet now, and they're acting of their own accord, then they too are just waiting for an excuse. If they're not being influenced by the US now, then a war between the US and China would be the perfect opportunity for them to strike at South Korea, and Pakistan is just waiting for the opportunity to strike at India. Again, let's seriously hope this isn't the case.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100849458
Quote: Many of those projects were built with the sole purpose of showing strong economic growth and not to generate economic rent, Smead said.
Gordon Chang, author of "The Coming Collapse of China," said China may only be growing 2 or 3 percent and if you strip out all the construction going into ghost cities and "high-speed rail lines to nowhere," the economy may not be growing at all.
He looks at electricity usage as a better indicator of growth than the official Chinese statistics.
"China claimed 7.7 percent growth for the first quarter," he told CNBC this month. "But when you look at electricity, by far the most reliable economic indicator of Chinese economic activity, that grew 2.9 percent in Q1. When you consider that the growth of GDP is historically 85 percent of the growth of electricity, you're talking 2.5 percent (growth)."
And many of those loans used to finance the construction of those ghost cities and idle train lines may never get repaid. Instead, banks continue to roll over these loans—many made to state-owned companies.
...
David Riedel of Riedel Research Group, told CNBC that while investors need to "worry about the health of the banking sector," the Chinese government's 20 percent reserve requirement for the banks and $3 trillion of foreign exchange reserves are "two strong pillars of support."
But using the foreign exchange reserves to recapitalize the banks could have nasty unintended consequences. Smead said they'd have to convert their U.S. Treasury holdings to yuan and "explosively increase the money supply."
That could torpedo the currency and stoke inflation, Smead said, creating a major crisis.
For some international investors, China uncertainty has been reason to avoid the country's equities altogether. Rajiv Jain, manager of the Virtus Foreign Opportunities Fund, told attendees at the Morningstar investment conference earlier in the month that he was "very concerned about the risk coming from China's shadow banking system."
In his first-quarter investment commentary, Jain wrote, "In our view this level of (China) credit growth is unsustainable. There is bound to be a significant contraction in credit and, with it, GDP." He added that the risks are systemic.
...
Smead takes a dimmer view, saying China in 2013 is more like the U.S. in 2007-08 when the global financial crisis hit. While he runs a long-only U.S. fund, China is his chief worry and that has him avoiding U.S. energy, resource and industrial companies that depend on China growth.
"It's probably late 2007-08 in China," Smead said. "It's a physical impossibility for economy to be growing as it is" unless credit continues to expand sharply. Wiki:
He predicts a deep recession or depression that could last four years as it deals with the fallout from the credit binge. Wiki:
Now, I am aware that Gatestone is neocon [seriously, did you and Cratehorus just pull a fucking poison-the-well fallacy on me?? NOT a good way to start a debate, guys!], but if a neocon brings up a good point, I have to concede with it. Slapping a "neocon" label onto something doesn't immediately invalidate it, the point itself has to be faulty. To address the claims of their ownership of land, can I please get an explanation, then, as to why they're encroaching on Indian lands? Far as I can recall, India doesn't hold land that China has in recent history. Technically, there's a bunch of area in the southwestern US that Mexico has claims to from over a century ago, but even though those areas tend to be loaded with republitards I still wouldn't say that they would be justified if they invaded in the name of reclaiming land that they haven't lived in in over a century [well...in a geopolitical sense at any rate]. Saying "they have historical claims to land" doesn't hold any merit when you consider that if we used that justification, there'd be dozens of nations that would be completely justified in suddenly invading their neighbors. Geopolitical borders have shifted hands all over the place over the course of human history for tons of reasons. If you used that justification as a valid excuse then if Finland was invaded by Russia then they'd be totally justified. If China invaded the Korean peninsula [after all they had claim to it...millenia ago] it'd be totally justified. That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard for justification and it gets lamer the more time passes in between the land being lost and being "reclaimed." The world changes very rapidly over the course of a mere decade. I'm not saying that the initial theft of land is justified, but two wrongs don't make a right, especially in a world where conflicts arise over these parcels of land between two or more nuclear-armed nations. That sort of shit doesn't fly.
You also failed to address the fact that China's been openly talking about how they wish to engage the US in open conflict. That's kind of a major thing given the potential for bloodshed if this were to happen. It sounds like you're saying China's just fine, they're a wonderful nation and everything's hunky-dory when, uh, no, no it is not. It is none of those things. Its human-rights abuses are many and constant. The US is far from innocent in that regard [I'm looking at yoooouuuu, Gitmo!], but China's recent list comes up a lot more bloody than the US. I am willing to concede that this might just be nationalism on my part, but I didn't support the war in Iraq. I didn't support the way the war in Afghanistan was waged. I definitely would not have supported the Vietnam war had I been around at the time. I don't agree with military belligerence in general unless there's a damn good reason for it. US involvement in WWII I definitely agree with and in such circumstances I wouldn't hesitate to support our involvement and militarization. We have not attacked China. We haven't ground their economy into the ground. We haven't infringed on their sovereign rights except for a few spy planes that flew over their country when they were weaponizing nuclear materials [one of which was shot down as I recall], and you just try to convince me that China hasn't been infringing on OUR sovereign rights endlessly and blatantly for the last 20 years via the internet, just try to so I can have a huge belly laugh. This sabre-rattling bullshit isn't justified. Now, however, I am willing to concede I might be overlooking something, and if you can provide some kind of justification for it, I'll be happy to accept it.
Is this enough for you, Chuck? Is this "valid and coherent" enough for you? Personally, I would much rather prefer China remain a militarily-quiet, economics-centric nation that does become a superpower in that way. It would be a very good template to show how to properly rise to power and influence in ways that don't require tons of bloodshed and violence. And up until recently it seemed to be going that route. Problem was their policies of endless borrowing and the disappointing returns have been constantly eroding that hope, and now as a result, they're turning to the idea of military power to make up for it.
So, my conclusion remains the same and might do so if all I get in return from this is more contrarianism without actually addressing the key factors, which, I'm afraid, is all you managed to bring to bear.
(June 29, 2013 at 6:43 am)The Germans are coming Wrote: They are just desperatly trying to get public support through such actions. (My guess)
China would never risk ending the stability of the Pacific region.
This is my fervent hope. The alternative is a nightmare.
(June 29, 2013 at 6:43 am)The Germans are coming Wrote: After all, when listing up all the neighbouring countries ne can only conclude that they are isolated.
Only Pakistan and Russia stand by them, the rest would side with the defendor if China should chose to be aggressive.
Well, Russia...not so much. Russia doesn't have much interest in going to war in general. Their economy isn't nearly stable enough to deal with a major war between global powers, and despite the immense levels of corruption in their higher echelons of government I don't think they'd be willing to risk shattering their nation's shaky economy by participating in a war that wouldn't be of much benefit to them at all. I WOULD, however, state that Iran is an ally you forgot to list. Iran's all but just waiting for an excuse at this point. If it turns out North Korea ISN'T a puppet now, and they're acting of their own accord, then they too are just waiting for an excuse. If they're not being influenced by the US now, then a war between the US and China would be the perfect opportunity for them to strike at South Korea, and Pakistan is just waiting for the opportunity to strike at India. Again, let's seriously hope this isn't the case.
