Rouhani’s economic policy: Recipe for indebtedness, deindustrialization and

[Homajon]

But why South Korea knew how to manoeuver through these routes and more so China?

When it comes to South Korea and Taiwan: they both had no natural resources to rely on, and the west feared the expansion of communism, so the west didn't apply their usual policy toward these two small countries and let them develop economically for containment of communism (and to show alternatives to their counterparts: the people of North Korea and China).

When it comes to China,a veteran german politician recently explained it in detail :
1) China was a nuclear-armed UN security council member.
2) In the 1970's and 1980's, the US wanted China to become a counterbalance to communist USSR.
3) The West and Japan desperately wanted to get access to Chinas gigantic consumer market of more than 1billion people, so they were ready to allow things that they would have never allowed for other countries - transfer of technology and know how. And despite China taking protective economic measures, the profit for the industrial nations were so incredibly gigantic (and till today they are) that those nations accepted Chinas conditions.
But the german also said, if the west had known how China would develop, they would never have opened up to China.


Unfortunately, Iran cannot go the same way the east-asians did, the circumstances are totally different. The West (but also Russia and China) will not let Iran develop the same way, because of its massiv resources and also because of its geography - the only country bordering the two by far most important energy reservoirs in the world: Persian gulf and Caspian sea.

Iran has to find its own way.

But one thing is for sure: "Moderate" and "liberal" policies a la Rouhani are toxic for Iran.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

When it comes to South Korea and Taiwan: they both had no natural resources to rely on, and the west feared the expansion of communism, so the west didn't apply their usual policy toward these two small countries and let them develop economically for containment of communism (and to show alternatives to their counterparts: the people of North Korea and China).

When it comes to China,a veteran german politician recently explained it in detail :
1) China was a nuclear-armed UN security council member.
2) In the 1970's and 1980's, the US wanted China to become a counterbalance to communist USSR.
3) The West and Japan desperately wanted to get access to Chinas gigantic consumer market of more than 1billion people, so they were ready to allow things that they would have never allowed for other countries - transfer of technology and know how. And despite China taking protective economic measures, the profit for the industrial nations were so incredibly gigantic (and till today they are) that those nations accepted Chinas conditions.
But the german also said, if the west had known how China would develop, they would never have opened up to China.


Unfortunately, Iran cannot go the same way the east-asians did, the circumstances are totally different. The West (but also Russia and China) will not let Iran develop the same way, because of its massiv resources and also because of its geography - the only country bordering the two by far most important energy reservoirs in the world: Persian gulf and Caspian sea.

Iran has to find its own way.

But one thing is for sure: "Moderate" and "liberal" policies a la Rouhani are toxic for Iran.

The US did use China as counterbalance against USSR, but they didn't give us a lot of carrots.

Because USSR was too aggressive toward China's wish for an independent sovereignty, they pushed China toward the West. Otherwise, China would side with USSR to win the Cold War.

BTW, China has no problem with Iran developing into an industrial powerhouse. It is not lip service, most Chinese from the military forums in China all think in this way.

Also, we believe that China's model is most suitable for Iran, since Japan and South Korea are virtually the vassal states of the US, of course their model isn't suitable for you.

 

[Homajon]

Because USSR was too aggressive toward China's wish for an independent sovereignty, they pushed China toward the West. Otherwise, China would side with USSR to win the Cold War..

Yes, and the West knew it. They started to change their China policy after 1969:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

Then in 1972 Nixon and Kissinger came to China, and the rest is history.

BTW, China has no problem with Iran developing into an industrial powerhouse. It is not lip service, most Chinese from the military forums in China all think in this way..

Oh yes, it has. It doesn't matter what Chinese from military forums in China think, it only matters what Chinese leaders think, and they don't want a high-tech Iran, or better said, they want it reluctantly, but only as far as it helps to push back against the west, not further.

Also, we believe that China's model is most suitable for Iran.

No it's not, I already explained why.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Yes, and the West knew it. They started to change their China policy after 1969:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

Then in 1972 Nixon and Kissinger came to China, and the rest is history.

Mao still wanted to remain neutral, not to fully antagonize USSR, he just wanted to avoid the sanctions by two superpowers at the same time.

But after his death, Deng completely seized the power, and he was more pro-West liberal than Mao, that's why China had fully shifted its favor to the West.

But Deng was also naive for fully trusted the West, we also got backstabbed by the West back in 1989, nearly died together with USSR.

After that, we have to re-embrace Mao's idea for not getting too close with the West.

Oh yes, it has. It doesn't matter what Chinese from military forums in China think, it only matters what Chinese leaders think, and they don't want a high-tech Iran, or better said, they want it reluctantly, but only as far as it helps to push back against the west, not further.

China doesn't share any border with Iran, I don't see why a high-tech Iran is a threat to China.

China doesn't even try to stop India. We support Pakistan, it is because India tried to backstab multiple times at the time China faced threat from other superpowers. Our alliance with Pakistan is a good deal to secure our border. Apart this, China never tries anything to impede or to block India.

No it's not, I already explained why.

You still hasn't elaborated it properly.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

When it comes to China,a veteran german politician recently explained it in detail :
1) China was a nuclear-armed UN security council member.
2) In the 1970's and 1980's, the US wanted China to become a counterbalance to communist USSR.
3) The West and Japan desperately wanted to get access to Chinas gigantic consumer market of more than 1billion people, so they were ready to allow things that they would have never allowed for other countries - transfer of technology and know how. And despite China taking protective economic measures, the profit for the industrial nations were so incredibly gigantic (and till today they are) that those nations accepted Chinas conditions.
But the german also said, if the west had known how China would develop, they would never have opened up to China.

BTW, the West didn't gift China anything. They were expecting to treat China as their sweatshop and their market colony. When it comes to the sensitive tech, they just put all embargo on us just like they did to Iran. The US and EU still have technology embargo on us, but it doesn't matter, since their high tech isn't untouchable for us anymore.

When China is working hard toward the success, they always accuse us of copying their technology. They always deny any non-white/western nation could make the achievement of their own.

I am not trying to convince you that Iran should fully trust China. I also think your current President is very pro-West liberal, and I am also afraid that he is going to make the same mistake as Deng made before which is to pave the road for the economic reform at the expense of getting de-industrialized. This mistake has impeded China's technology development for two decades.

As Chairman Mao mentioned before; the technology cannot be bought, we can only make our own, and we can never rely on others but by ourselves. I think this is the spirit shared by both China and Iran, and if China follows this development model, then Iran should follow the same.

 

[Arminkh]

Indeed, why borrowing?! Why not directly paying? Iran has alot of money. Why not paying with the 100 billion dollar that Iran has in foreign banks? Wasn't it part of the nuclear deal that Iran gets back all this money? Why hasn't that happened? So why should Iran borrow anything?!




Indeed, the Rouhani administration has more US-educated ministers than any other iranian administration before, and they act as this is something to be proud of....
OK, when it comes to nature sciences and engineering, then yes: For instance, Ali Akbar Salehi studied nuclear sciences at MIT, this is indeed something to be proud of.
But when it comes to social and economic sciences, it is toxic for non "First-world-countries" to let their citizens study in neo-liberal universaties, and it is even more toxic when these citizens get government jobs in their homelands!



Russian economists also knew about these routes, and still Russia went down this road. Economists of all second and third-world countries know them, and still they implement this harmful policies.

Do you know what the borrowing rate is?

 

[mike2000 is back]

When it comes to South Korea and Taiwan: they both had no natural resources to rely on, and the west feared the expansion of communism, so the west didn't apply their usual policy toward these two small countries and let them develop economically for containment of communism (and to show alternatives to their counterparts: the people of North Korea and China).

When it comes to China,a veteran german politician recently explained it in detail :
1) China was a nuclear-armed UN security council member.
2) In the 1970's and 1980's, the US wanted China to become a counterbalance to communist USSR.
3) The West and Japan desperately wanted to get access to Chinas gigantic consumer market of more than 1billion people, so they were ready to allow things that they would have never allowed for other countries - transfer of technology and know how. And despite China taking protective economic measures, the profit for the industrial nations were so incredibly gigantic (and till today they are) that those nations accepted Chinas conditions.
But the german also said, if the west had known how China would develop, they would never have opened up to China.


Unfortunately, Iran cannot go the same way the east-asians did, the circumstances are totally different. The West (but also Russia and China) will not let Iran develop the same way, because of its massiv resources and also because of its geography - the only country bordering the two by far most important energy reservoirs in the world: Persian gulf and Caspian sea.

Iran has to find its own way.

But one thing is for sure: "Moderate" and "liberal" policies a la Rouhani are toxic for Iran.

Funny enough I agree with everything you said. China wit it's huge market was(and it's still) more attractive than a relatively small country like Iran, so there are things our leaders vould let China get away with that they will never have allowed other smaller countries do. Plus China after opening up to the West became a crucial western ally against Soviet communist ideology/superpower, so this also helped tem alot back then. Unfortunately Iran is in a totally different situation compared to China or even S.KOREA/Japan. So yes, you are right about this one.

 

[The SC]

When it comes to South Korea and Taiwan: they both had no natural resources to rely on, and the west feared the expansion of communism, so the west didn't apply their usual policy toward these two small countries and let them develop economically for containment of communism (and to show alternatives to their counterparts: the people of North Korea and China).

When it comes to China,a veteran german politician recently explained it in detail :
1) China was a nuclear-armed UN security council member.
2) In the 1970's and 1980's, the US wanted China to become a counterbalance to communist USSR.
3) The West and Japan desperately wanted to get access to Chinas gigantic consumer market of more than 1billion people, so they were ready to allow things that they would have never allowed for other countries - transfer of technology and know how. And despite China taking protective economic measures, the profit for the industrial nations were so incredibly gigantic (and till today they are) that those nations accepted Chinas conditions.
But the german also said, if the west had known how China would develop, they would never have opened up to China.


Unfortunately, Iran cannot go the same way the east-asians did, the circumstances are totally different. The West (but also Russia and China) will not let Iran develop the same way, because of its massiv resources and also because of its geography - the only country bordering the two by far most important energy reservoirs in the world: Persian gulf and Caspian sea.

Iran has to find its own way.

But one thing is for sure: "Moderate" and "liberal" policies a la Rouhani are toxic for Iran.

What you say makes a lot of sense, but don't you think that almost the whole world is somehow a prisoner of the western economic"science" and mainly its will to help others succeed or not, depending of course on its own strategic interests?
So Iran as much of the Muslim countries find themselves in between a rock and a hard place when it comes to managing their economies..because if one befriends them (the western powers) , they will dictate his econmic route to fit their interest first and foremost, and if one ignores them then the consequences are worst for its economy.. Hence,to find its own way in this well set economic trap, one has to be very flexible and strong.. not many countries can claim that, but Iran has what it takes to find its own way due to what it went through for the last 37 years; the experimentations and experiences gained under the sanctions and also due to its massive natural resources and dependance of some major players on them.. Also it is a very attractive and lucrative market for Western major companies, mostly in these times of rebuilding of some major sectors like civilian airlines, armed forces, R$D in petroleum and Gas products and sub-products, infrastructure and many more sectors.. So all in all Iran holds some cards in its hands that it can play against economic hegemony of some Western countries.. it has to find some equilibrium in its opening up to the West and preserving of its own industries, it can do that by controlling imports and encouraging exports, while maketing its own western equivalent products for internal consumption, by providing quality and value plus to its population..

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Oh yes, it has. It doesn't matter what Chinese from military forums in China think, it only matters what Chinese leaders think, and they don't want a high-tech Iran, or better said, they want it reluctantly, but only as far as it helps to push back against the west, not further.

In geopolitics, national interests always come first.

Right now we are somewhat aligned in terms of issues like US hegemony and the Syria mess.

I don't believe that Iran is a threat to Chinese interests though, so we can continue to work together just fine for the forseeable future.

 

[Homajon]

I don't want to talk to much about China, as this not the topic of this thread, but here my last words about China.

Mao still wanted to remain neutral, not to fully antagonize USSR, he just wanted to avoid the sanctions by two superpowers at the same time.

But after his death, Deng completely seized the power, and he was more pro-West liberal than Mao, that's why China had fully shifted its favor to the West..

The reason why, after the Nixon-Mao visit, China didn't open up to the west, had nothing to do with neutrality, but all with internal chinese politics.

But Deng was also naive for fully trusted the West, we also got backstabbed by the West back in 1989, nearly died together with USSR.

1. Deng never fully trusted the west, and under him China was not pro-western.

2. Yes, the west was behind Tiananmen protests of 1989, as they wanted to bring about a chinese leadership that wouldn't apply protective economic measures. But after the west failed, they accepted it and acted as if nothing happened and continued to accept Chinas conditions, and why? Because of Chinas monster consumer market.

China doesn't share any border with Iran, I don't see why a high-tech Iran is a threat to China.

As i already said, at post #16:

"The West (but also Russia and China) will not let Iran develop the same way, because of its massiv resources and also because of its geography - the only country bordering the two by far most important energy reservoirs in the world: Persian gulf and Caspian sea."

China wants free and easy and cheap access to this resources and regions, and a fully developed Iran would be a major obstacle to that.

You still hasn't elaborated it properly.

Yes, I have. Read post #16 , the conditions there do not apply to todays Iran, so Iran cannot go the chinese way.

BTW, the West didn't gift China anything.

It is incredible how much China was gifted. German business leaders have always complained how much technology and know-how they have to give to their Chinese counterparts just to be allowed to enter Chinas market. Of course China doesn't get everything it wants 100%, but what they get is still absolutely out of proportion compared to what other countries get.

In geopolitics, national interests always come first.

And that is why I say: China doesn't want a high-tech Iran, or only reluctantly.

 

[Homajon]

Do you know what the borrowing rate is?

No.

What you say makes a lot of sense, but don't you think that almost the whole world is somehow a prisoner of the western economic"science" and mainly its will to help others succeed or not, depending of course on its own strategic interests?

That is why I say, citizens of second and third-world countries should not study in first-world countries, except when it comes to natural sciences and engineering.

So Iran as much of the Muslim countries find themselves in between a rock and a hard place when it comes to managing their economies..because if one befriends them (the western powers) , they will dictate his econmic route to fit their interest first and foremost, and if one ignores them then the consequences are worst for its economy

You focus to much on the West. It's not just the West, it is also the East, the North and the South.

Hence,to find its own way in this well set economic trap, one has to be very flexible and strong

And before Rouhani Iran was doing that.
Ahmadinejad was flexible in the low-tech sector and strong in the high-tech sector. Iran had a developed low-tech sector, but Iran was under sanctions, China was its main oil customer, Iran needed the money, China was not willing to have a major trade deficit with Iran, so Iran opened up its low-tech market to China (just as the West did, and more extreme. Today the Wests low-tech sector is wiped out. When you go in a store in Germany, everything you see is made in China.).
So Irans low-tech sector suffered. But contrary to that, Irans high-tech sector exploded under Ahmadinejad, its growth was simply amazing not seen before.
A low-tech sector can be regained easily (if that's desired at all), but when you lose your high-tech sector, it will take many many years and decades to regain it (and probably you can't).

Rouhani wants total openness, a pure neo-liberal economy, which will bring about Irans deindustrialization and colonization, plain and simple.

(Ahmadinejads main mistake was privatization in the finance/banking sector, but also here it was small compared to what Rouhani wants to do.)

 

[Madali]

Indeed, the Rouhani administration has more US-educated ministers than any other iranian administration before, and they act as this is something to be proud of....
OK, when it comes to nature sciences and engineering, then yes: For instance, Ali Akbar Salehi studied nuclear sciences at MIT, this is indeed something to be proud of.
But when it comes to social and economic sciences, it is toxic for non "First-world-countries" to let their citizens study in neo-liberal universaties, and it is even more toxic when these citizens get government jobs in their homelands!

What actually annoys me is that a lot of them are DUAL CITIZENS. How can you work for the Iranian government while you also have citizenship in your country's enemy?? For example, there was a news recently, that one of the members of the nuclear negotiation team was possibly a spy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ar-spy-for-giving-secrets-to-west-say-reports

"Iranian media outlets reported on Sunday that a dual national identified as Abdolrasoul Dorri Esfahani, a senior accountant involved in banking-related aspects of the nuclear talks, had been arrested for alleged espionage."

"On 16 August, the Tehran prosecutor announced the arrest of a British-Iranian on suspicion of links to Britain’s intelligence service."

 

[Arminkh]

No.

Then why do you think borrowing is a bad thing? When rate of return of your investment is above the loan interest rate, then you should borrow as much as you can even if you have all the money in the world.