Hillary Clinton 'does not want her grandchildren to live in a world dominated by the Chinese

[Indos]

What did they do?

The Plaza Accord or Plaza Agreement was an agreement between the governments of France, West Germany, Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom, to depreciate the U.S. dollar in relation to the Japanese yen and German Deutsche Mark by intervening in currency markets. The five governments signed the accord on September 22, 1985 at the Plaza Hotel in New York City.

Plaza Accord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After this one, in order to stay competitive, Japan started to relocate their industries into several East Asian and South East Asian Countries.

 

[Scavenger]

After this one, in order to stay competitive, Japan started to relocate their industries into several East Asian and South East Asian Countries.

I see.

In the current scenario however, China will never 'replace' US. It will be a multipolar world. There will be big two - US and China and a couple of others slightly lower than the big two.

India for example- India will be its own pole and not join any side.

And while our economy will never be as big as China, we will certainly be the third largest in the world.

But she doesn't mind being dominated by a black Muslim president.
It's good she's scared of the chinese.
"Hillary, go out there and pick the cotton"

Do you feel that being black is something bad or inferior?
That if she is comfortable with a black American President, she should be okay with Chinese as well ?

 

[rott]

Mrs. Clinton has every right to air her views. However , unfortunately for her, these views cannot and will not alter the course of history in the making : the unprecedented ascendancy of the Chinese Motherland.

It is Her time, now. Resistance is futile.



This was predicted in Japanese political journals about 10 years ago, my friend. The moment China surpasses Japan would mark her ascendancy , now, she is soon to eclipse America, the resistance is natural. However , denialism shall not alter its course , it will only delay acceptance of the inevitable.

I see.

In the current scenario however, China will never 'replace' US. It will be a multipolar world. There will be big two - US and China and a couple of others slightly lower than the big two.

India for example- India will be its own pole and not join any side.

And while our economy will never be as big as China, we will certainly be the third largest in the world.


Do you feel that being black is something bad or inferior?
That if she is comfortable with a black American President, she should be okay with Chinese as well ?

Did I say being black is inferior or are you trying to put words in my mouth?

You're trying to say, if she's dominated by a black president so it's okay to be dominated by Chinese. Nope! You misunderstood me completely. It has nothing to do with Chinese.

 

[Indos]

I see.

In the current scenario however, China will never 'replace' US. It will be a multipolar world. There will be big two - US and China and a couple of others slightly lower than the big two.

India for example- India will be its own pole and not join any side.

And while our economy will never be as big as China, we will certainly be the third largest in the world.

Dont forget ASEAN though, we are also growing fast currently

ASEAN infographics: population, market, economy - ASEAN UP

 

[Abacin]

And yet in case after case after case in history, the evidence indicates clearly the opposite. Centralized, authoritarian systems, inevitably fail. Systems with balanced constitutions, democratic consent, the stable rule of laws passed by elected leaders, have proven resilient. Ironically, history is filled with tyrants who have held exatly the same view of democracy that you have, from European absolute monarchs, to military authoritarians, Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, and on and on. Where are they now? Gone-In the dustbin of history. People like Khrushchev looked at American and western democracies and shouted, "We will bury you!" His Soviet system collapsed under the weight of it's own lies, and his children are American professors at places like Brown University.


Well, Mr. Obama did partly grow up there and speaks passable Indonesian. That helped, I'm sure.


I agree completely. If mainland China ever transitions to the democratic system that her cousins in Taiwan have successfully done, she very well may become the world's leading and most powerful nation.

Based on your 200 year history? Chinese Xia Dynasty was as long as 470 years. Shang Dynasty was 512 years. Do not talk about historical facts before China. We have well documented history for 5000 years.

West Knew nothing about history and Chinese political systems. In Wangli Emperor period in Ming Dynasty, due to some arguments with the ministers about his father's status, he did not come to the court for nearly 40 years. But the country larger than Europe still ran well. The country defeated Japan in North Korea, crushed Mongolian revolts in NorthWest. It also tried to conquer Burma though failed. For current China, even during the cultural revolution, the country was very stable. 1989 was a blip due to the in confident leaders such as Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyao. As long as they were purged and the country restores the confidence, your dream about collapse of China will never work. The West never understands Chinese confidence with invincible continuous 5000 years and defeating of numerous competitors.

China has been secular and unified for nearly 2000 years while the west has been secular only only several hundreds of years. Our arrogance made us weak for last 150 years, but our comeback was also quick. In 1900, the allied armies of eight countries conquered Beijing but just in 50 years, we pushed back the alliance of 16 countries from our border in Korea. Most Westerners are ignorant on China, including many Ivy professors because all of your knowledge are based on your own naive views or those losers from China such as Taiwanese.

China started to favor something similar to communism as early as 2000 years ago. In Chinese system, everything was public, or under Emperor. However, the emperor must have very high moral standard and do not abuse the wealth. Otherwise he was immoral and could be killed by anyone. Communism may fail in Soviet Union but may work in China since China has much stronger historical background for it. In China, most dynasties failed because the country couldn't stop privatization and the wealth was accumulated to the few ones. Then when the bad time came, the poor 99% revolted and killed those 1% and redistributed the wealth with new Dynasty. To most Chinese, United States is just a dynasty. When almost all the wealth are accumulated to the 1% and the 99% feel hard to live, you will fall into chaos and the dynasty will end.

 

[Desertfalcon]

Did I say being black is inferior or are you trying to put words in my mouth

He didn't put words in your mouth and you most certainly did use racist language.

But she doesn't mind being dominated by a black Muslim president.

"Hillary, go out there and pick the cotton"

Wow, just wow!

 

[rott]

He didn't put words in your mouth and you most certainly did use racist language.


Wow, just wow!

Thank you

 

[Desertfalcon]

Based on your 200 year history?

No, based on world history which is not static, nor is Chinese imperial history of much relevance in a communist political system that dedicated itself to wiping it out. You have also conveniently glossed over the fact that that imperial system was more often than not in history, chaotic, ever changing and advanced no consistent political philosophy. It is not germane to my argument however, which is far more fundamental. Truth is truth, whether one is Chinese, American, Indian, or Swedish.

These political systems...

...have been clearly proven far less resilient than say, this political system...

Thank you

I'm not sure your English comprehension is quite up to snuff.

 

[Abacin]

No, based on world history which is not static, nor is Chinese imperial history of much relevance in a communist political system that dedicated itself to wiping it out. You have also conveniently glossed over the fact that that imperial system was more often than not in history, chaotic, ever changing and advanced no consistent political philosophy. It is not germane to my argument however, which is far more fundamental. Truth is truth, whether one is Chinese, American, Indian, or Swedish.

These political systems...

...have been clearly proven far less resilient than say, this political system...

I'm not sure your English comprehension is quite up to snuff.

You are still painting Mao as demons while in China, Mao thought is the foundation. His portrait and memorial are on the Tiananmen. If you have a chance to travel to China, you will see Mao's medals and portraits are sold much more populat than those of Deng. This just shows how Western people are brainwashed.

 

[rott]

No, based on world history which is not static, nor is Chinese imperial history of much relevance in a communist political system that dedicated itself to wiping it out. You have also conveniently glossed over the fact that that imperial system was more often than not in history, chaotic, ever changing and advanced no consistent political philosophy. It is not germane to my argument however, which is far more fundamental. Truth is truth, whether one is Chinese, American, Indian, or Swedish.

These political systems...

...have been clearly proven far less resilient than say, this political system...

I'm not sure your English comprehension is quite up to snuff.

"I Don't speaka English, I speaka chineeeeese"

Your English is fake too. Copied from the brits and called it American English?
Learn English from them.

You are still painting Mao as demons while in China, Mao thought is the foundation. His portrait and memorial are on the Tiananmen. If you have a chance to travel to China, you will see Mao's medals and portraits are sold much more populat than those of Deng. This just shows how Western people are brainwashed.

Exactly!

 

[Desertfalcon]

You are still painting Mao as demons while in China, Mao thought is the foundation. His portrait and memorial are on the Tiananmen. If you have a chance to travel to China, you will see Mao's medals and portraits are sold much more populat than those of Deng.

That may be, but the system that Mao wished for and worked for, is practically gone. China today is Deng's creation, not Mao's, regardless of any popularity cult. People are nostalgic. Most specifically, people who are too young to know the truth. This was the real Mao, the real history, in contrast to what the patriotic statues of him attempted to glorify...

Issue 6, Spring 2011

 

[Abacin]

China is still basically run on Mao's system. Deng made the great contribution by incorporating market economy into it.

No, based on world history which is not static, nor is Chinese imperial history of much relevance in a communist political system that dedicated itself to wiping it out. You have also conveniently glossed over the fact that that imperial system was more often than not in history, chaotic, ever changing and advanced no consistent political philosophy. It is not germane to my argument however, which is far more fundamental. Truth is truth, whether one is Chinese, American, Indian, or Swedish.

These political systems...

...have been clearly proven far less resilient than say, this political system...

I'm not sure your English comprehension is quite up to snuff.

That may be, but the system that Mao wished for and worked for, is practically gone. China today is Deng's creation, not Mao's, regardless of any popularity cult. People are nostalgic. Most specifically, people who are too young to know the truth. This was the real Mao, the real history, in contrast to what the patriotic statues of him attempted to glorify...

Issue 6, Spring 2011

No. You are completely wrong. The current Chinese system are based on three segments: Ancient Chinese System; Mao's Reform and Deng's Reform.
Ancient China knew that it was critical important to have farmers to have their own lands. For each new dynasty, with many lands taken from rich people of last dynasty, all farmers were given lands. However, after one or two hundreds years, tmany farmers lost lands by various reasons. All the wealth were accumulated to a few. The poor farmers revolted to end the old dynasty. A new cycle started.
Mao wanted to end this cycle through collective land ownship by villages. Everyone born in the villages can get a share of the lands. At the same time, Mao established complete industrial systems through state ownship to avoid rich capitalists.
But Mao's system was not as dynamic as the West's market economy. Deng introduced market economy into both villages and industry to improve dynamics of the economy. However, collective land ownship is still held while state ownship is the mainframe.
Your statement of the end of Mao's system is wrong. West always says this to prove the superiority of free market economy. However, strictly China is socialism market economy, not free market economy.

Deng was just a reformer, not a creator. In some sense, Mao was also a reformer, not a creator. Wisdom of a civilization accumulates through reforming. Mao was revolutionary since his design may end Chinese dynasty cycles.

 

[bbccdd1470]

Based on your 200 year history? Chinese Xia Dynasty was as long as 470 years. Shang Dynasty was 512 years. Do not talk about historical facts before China. We have well documented history for 5000 years.

West Knew nothing about history and Chinese political systems. In Wangli Emperor period in Ming Dynasty, due to some arguments with the ministers about his father's status, he did not come to the court for nearly 40 years. But the country larger than Europe still ran well. The country defeated Japan in North Korea, crushed Mongolian revolts in NorthWest. It also tried to conquer Burma though failed. For current China, even during the cultural revolution, the country was very stable. 1989 was a blip due to the in confident leaders such as Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyao. As long as they were purged and the country restores the confidence, your dream about collapse of China will never work. The West never understands Chinese confidence with invincible continuous 5000 years and defeating of numerous competitors.

China has been secular and unified for nearly 2000 years while the west has been secular only only several hundreds of years. Our arrogance made us weak for last 150 years, but our comeback was also quick. In 1900, the allied armies of eight countries conquered Beijing but just in 50 years, we pushed back the alliance of 16 countries from our border in Korea. Most Westerners are ignorant on China, including many Ivy professors because all of your knowledge are based on your own naive views or those losers from China such as Taiwanese.

China started to favor something similar to communism as early as 2000 years ago. In Chinese system, everything was public, or under Emperor. However, the emperor must have very high moral standard and do not abuse the wealth. Otherwise he was immoral and could be killed by anyone. Communism may fail in Soviet Union but may work in China since China has much stronger historical background for it. In China, most dynasties failed because the country couldn't stop privatization and the wealth was accumulated to the few ones. Then when the bad time came, the poor 99% revolted and killed those 1% and redistributed the wealth with new Dynasty. To most Chinese, United States is just a dynasty. When almost all the wealth are accumulated to the 1% and the 99% feel hard to live, you will fall into chaos and the dynasty will end.

Very thoughtful post. It's kind of funny when someone praises about the democracy in Taiwan but in fact proved himself ignorant of the current situation there. Taiwan is obviously not a good example of a successful democracy due to their constant ideological fighting and populism. If you ask a person who live there, he will no doubt tell you that the government of Taiwan is useless as hell. Taiwan is losing its edges against their rival South Korea on every sector due to their inefficiency and indecision. I still remember their military research capacity was on par with the South Korea during the 80s and 90s, they now have nothing indigenous but those second-hand weapons from USA. South Korea had already signed the FTA with China, while the taiwanese cancelled the trade agreement that is mostly favour to them due to their uncontrolled populism. Democracy is only worked well if you have a bunch of rational and foresight people, however in the case of Taiwan, people are mostly driven by their ideology rather than reasoning.

 

[Desertfalcon]

Deng was just a reformer, not a creator. In some sense, Mao was also a reformer, not a creator. Wisdom of a civilization accumulates through reforming. Mao was revolutionary since his design may end Chinese dynasty cycles.

Well, Mao most certainly did end China's dynastic past and with it, most of the last vestiges of her Imperial past. I will agree however, that we never just start "fresh". Even America didn't, borrowing the best of British ideas of law, parliament, and individual liberty.

I would argue though, and have been, that democratic systems are far more capable of reform, of adapting, than authoritarian systems are. Indeed, that is one of the key reasons why they inevitably fail.

Taiwan is obviously not a good example of a successful democracy due to their constant ideological fighting and populism.

Lol! I'm not sure you really understand what democracy is. Here's a clue, your statement here is part of the very definition of it!

 

[Abacin]

Economy decides politics as said Marx. If Wealth is distributed to 1% while 99% feel hard to survive, no matter what kind of political systems it is, it fails. China as a communist country, focusing more on the economic side while the west focuses on democracy, human rights and ignores the poor 99%. In China, there are many poor farmers with yearly income less than several thousands of dollars. They may be discriminated by the rich city people. But when they come home, they still can enjoy bigger houses than most Hong Kong people and own their lands. All of these are given by Mao. That's why Mao is extremely popular in the countryside, including Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongolians, Hmong or Han Chinese.