The clock is ticking for USA....

[Chinaownseverything]

Oh BS, what was wrong with Liu Xiaoqi and Deng Xiaoping's early attempts at economic reform? They cannot be compared in any way with what happened to russia. They were the same gradualist reforms that got put in place later and which resulted in China's prosperity today. These reforms just got senselessly delayed 25 years because Mao wouldn't die soon enough.

You do realize that most of China's rapid growth came from direct foreign investment right? Why do you think people invested in 1970 China instead of places like the middle east or India? Why did they choose to build their factories in China? because China ALREADY had an industrial base and trained workers, something that China achieved through collectivization. Anybody could build a factory and be ensured that they will have skilled workers to run it along with a steady supply of electricity to keep it running as well as a freight service to ship raw materials. Things that Mao built through collectivization. There are stable governments in the middle east and Africa but nobody builds factories there because China has everything already.

You do realize that most of these reforms are not being used today right?

Chinese economic reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the ascension of the conservative Hu-Wen Administration in 2002, many of Deng Xiaoping's reforms were reversed.[3] Observers note that the government adopted a more egalitarian and populist bent.[20] The government re-nationalized health care[21], halted privatization[3], and adopted a loose monetary policy, which lead to the formation of a U.S.-style property bubble in which property prices tripled.[22] The privileged state sector was the primary recipient of government investment, which under the new administration promoted the rise of large "national champions" which could compete with large foreign corporations.[3]

 

[whocares]

Secondly, coming to the Indians expressing admiration for China, it reminds me of the famous saying "diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggie until you can find a stone." Make no mistake about it -- India hates China -- which is why it is arming itself to the teeth with Western and Russian weapons. Another clue to India's real nature can be found by observing its interactions with its neighbors. As they say in dating, if you want to find out your date's real personality, pay attention to how they treat the waiter. All of India's neighbors are either openly anti-India and/or are equally friendly with China. India has a far better reputation away from home (through carefully crafted media) than it does with its immediate neighbors who have known it longest and best.

I will gladly accept that india has made plenty of foreign policy mistakes in its neighbourhood.

Still, the world likes us because we've stayed a functional democracy for all 63 years of independence and now have strong capital markets, a strong legal system and atleast one stable constitution which is properly secular

As far as China goes, its hard for someone in India to have a whiff of what their leadership's foreign policy designs are going to be as they get more and more powerful militarily and economically. So naturally there is going to be an air of caution.

With Pakistan atleast we know that we are hated and every regime will pretty much try and destabilize Kashmir The objectives are clear.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

Shouldn't a democracy follow the voice of the people?

Well people say you are a troll so I'm not sure if I should but very well. Time for a little history lesson.

Democracy is not about rule by opinion poll nor is it about doing exactly what the people want at any given time. The roots of democracy, the Greek city states and the Roman Republic make this clear. Tyrant and dictator didn't used to be words for evil men. They were individuals who you handed over absolute power to for a fixed period of time to deal with emergencies. Now fast forward to perhaps the definitive democratic President, Ronald Reagan who some say won the cold war. "Those who say there are no heroes just don't know where to look." Despite mounting public opinion against his reforms, Reagan slashed government and ended the recession with a massive expansion of the US military. Keeping all this in mind, it's very clear that democracy is:

1. Intended to elect heroic leaders who will do whatever it takes, even if it isn't popular, to solve crisis. In Western culture being a rebel and thinking outside the box is a highly valued trait.

2. Designed to temper potential abuse with maximum term limits. This way, a hero rather than worried about public opinion (necessary to get reelected and/or stay in power) is worried about the legacy of his reforms and how "history will treat him." Even the greatest moron Bush was worried about his legacy and domestically he increased aid to Africa to the most of any USA president and tried to create a temporary worker VISA and reform social security. And even if he is really awful he is gone in four years.

3. Allows you (at least in theory) to elect leaders not based on their party platform or proposed initiatives (half of which are lies anyway and get changed once you're in government). Instead you elect leaders based on whether they have a strong moral center and an overriding vision of the nation.

Off the top of my head I can name at least ten American Presidents who have made major, sweeping changes to the country. Fundamental changes which without America would be very different today and perhaps a shallow version of itself. Most historians would consider JFK, FDR, Teddy, perhaps even Clinton and Obama in the future to be heroes. And a hero is not worried about what the people around him say; a hero is someone who is courageous enough to do something even if everyone else around him thinks it is wrong.

Benefits of this system is when you hire a great hero for four years, your country benefits greatly. If you hire an idiot like Bush, your country suffers greatly. Although anyone with a brain should have realized being a frat boy and a business failure is not a recipe for heroism.

So in summary democracy is an attempt to elect benevolent tyrants and dictators, or if you want heroes. It is not rule by opinion poll.

 

[Developereo]

Still, the world likes us because we've stayed a functional democracy for all 63 years of independence and now have strong capital markets, a strong legal system and atleast one stable constitution which is properly secular

The western world likes India primarily because it forms a counter to China, whom they fear as a real threat. The secondary reason is the potential market of 1 billion people. Democracy is a non-issue for western governments and businesses.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Well people say you are a troll so I'm not sure if I should but very well. Time for a little history lesson.

Democracy is not about rule by opinion poll nor is it about doing exactly what the people want at any given time. The roots of democracy, the Greek city states and the Roman Republic make this clear. Tyrant and dictator didn't used to be words for evil men. They were individuals who you handed over absolute power to for a fixed period of time to deal with emergencies. Now fast forward to perhaps the definitive democratic President, Ronald Reagan who some say won the cold war. "Those who say there are no heroes just don't know where to look." Despite mounting public opinion against his reforms, Reagan slashed government and ended the recession with a massive expansion of the US military. Keeping all this in mind, it's very clear that democracy is:

1. Intended to elect heroic leaders who will do whatever it takes, even if it isn't popular, to solve crisis. In Western culture being a rebel and thinking outside the box is a highly valued trait.

2. Designed to temper potential abuse with maximum term limits. This way, a hero rather than worried about public opinion (necessary to get reelected and/or stay in power) is worried about the legacy of his reforms and how "history will treat him." Even the greatest moron Bush was worried about his legacy and domestically he increased aid to Africa to the most of any USA president and tried to create a temporary worker VISA and reform social security. And even if he is really awful he is gone in four years.

3. Allows you (at least in theory) to elect leaders not based on their party platform or proposed initiatives (half of which are lies anyway and get changed once you're in government). Instead you elect leaders based on whether they have a strong moral center and an overriding vision of the nation.

Off the top of my head I can name at least ten American Presidents who have made major, sweeping changes to the country. Fundamental changes which without America would be very different today and perhaps a shallow version of itself. Most historians would consider JFK, FDR, Teddy, perhaps even Clinton and Obama in the future to be heroes. And a hero is not worried about what the people around him say; a hero is someone who is courageous enough to do something even if everyone else around him thinks it is wrong.

Benefits of this system is when you hire a great hero for four years, your country benefits greatly. If you hire an idiot like Bush, your country suffers greatly. Although anyone with a brain should have realized being a frat boy and a business failure is not a recipe for heroism.

So in summary democracy is an attempt to elect benevolent tyrants and dictators, or if you want heroes. It is not rule by opinion poll.

So why is this system better than China's? China has term limits also

 

[TorontoNoctis]

Nobody said that system was better than China. That is your own invention . Each system has its pros and cons.

Quite disappointing to see a one line response to what was basically a free history class. But I suppose it is better than a flame.

 

[whocares]

The western world likes India primarily because it forms a counter to China, whom they fear as a real threat. The secondary reason is the potential market of 1 billion people. Democracy is a non-issue for western governments and businesses.

I see what you're saying but the west is slowly getting out of its blatantly imperialistic - install dictator and loot mode. they've improved to install democracy and open new markets

oh, and we weren't caught selling N technology either. nor have we ever sheltered declared enemies of the west.

 

[Developereo]

The roots of democracy, the Greek city states and the Roman Republic make this clear.

Most 'democratic' countries have a republic today; traditional Greek democracy is unworkable beyond a few thousand people anyway.

Despite mounting public opinion against his reforms, Reagan slashed government and ended the recession with a massive expansion of the US military.

Reagan was a smart man who knew what the people wanted (i.e. real public opinion) as opposed to what the liberal media elites were banging on about. Reagan was so popular across the political aisles that the term Reagan-Democrat was coined. Once in a rare while you get a leader who can read the public mood without the benefit of media pundits.

Keeping all this in mind, it's very clear that democracy is:

1. Intended to elect heroic leaders who will do whatever it takes, even if it isn't popular, to solve crisis. In Western culture being a rebel and thinking outside the box is a highly valued trait.

Utter nonsense. People elect leaders who promise them a steady job and a good economy. Nobody wants to take a chance on heroes; they want someone who can steer the ship steady as she goes.

We all know Obama got elected primarily because he is a) black and b) not Bush.

2. Designed to temper potential abuse with maximum term limits. This way, a hero rather than worried about public opinion (necessary to get reelected and/or stay in power) is worried about the legacy of his reforms and how "history will treat him." Even the greatest moron Bush was worried about his legacy and domestically he increased aid to Africa to the most of any USA president and tried to create a temporary worker VISA and reform social security. And even if he is really awful he is gone in four years.

Electged leades are beholden to their party and will not do anything radical (i.e. unpopular) which will damage their party's chances in the next election. Unless you get a rebel or maverick who doesn't care about his party and then all bets are off.

3. Allows you (at least in theory) to elect leaders not based on their party platform or proposed initiatives (half of which are lies anyway and get changed once you're in government). Instead you elect leaders based on whether they have a strong moral center and an overriding vision of the nation.

Also crap. Democratic elections are a likability contest. Nothing more. Policy issues are pretty much standard along party lines for most candidates.

Off the top of my head I can name at least ten American Presidents who have made major, sweeping changes to the country. Fundamental changes which without America would be very different today and perhaps a shallow version of itself. Most historians would consider JFK, FDR, Teddy, perhaps even Clinton and Obama in the future to be heroes.

Every single one of those predidents made their policy moves along media sanctioned lines. Not a single one of them went against the media, which is one reason they are touted as heroes in the media.

With all your examples you actually proved that, except for highly charismatic leaders like Reagan, most run-of-the-mill 'leaders' follow the media.

 

[sunny001]

Most 'democratic' countries have a republic today; traditional Greek democracy is unworkable beyond a few thousand people anyway.



Reagan was a smart man who knew what the people wanted (i.e. real public opinion) as opposed to what the liberal media elites were banging on about. Reagan was so popular across the political aisles that the term Reagan-Democrat was coined. Once in a rare while you get a leader who can read the public mood without the benefit of media pundits.



Utter nonsense. People elect leaders who promise them a steady job and a good economy. Nobody wants to take a chance on heroes; they want someone who can steer the ship steady as she goes.

We all know Obama got elected primarily because he is a) black and b) not Bush.



Electged leades are beholden to their party and will not do anything radical (i.e. unpopular) which will damage their party's chances in the next election. Unless you get a rebel or maverick who doesn't care about his party and then all bets are off.



Also crap. Democratic elections are a likability contest. Nothing more. Policy issues are pretty much standard along party lines for most candidates.



Every single one of those predidents made their policy moves along media sanctioned lines. Not a single one of them went against the media, which is one reason they are touted as heroes in the media.

With all your examples you actually proved that, except for highly charismatic leaders like Reagan, most run-of-the-mill 'leaders' follow the media.

Just one question though, do you want presidents to go against the media just to prove your point? What if media was right in all those situations? You wouldn't jeopardize national security just for making a point. Even with all those presidents just following the media, america seem to have done well for itself. It is the leading nation of the world. Last I recall, it still is sole super power.

 

[Donatello]

Just one question though, do you want presidents to go against the media just to prove your point? What if media was right in all those situations? You wouldn't jeopardize national security just for making a point. Even with all those presidents just following the media, america seem to have done well for itself. It is the leading nation of the world. Last I recall, it still is sole super power.

Well, America being sole super power is relative to what you think.

They could oust Saddam in a conventional war but what about Taliban and Al-Qaeda??

Most of the wanted people by CIA are still...WANTED.

9 years and they still haven't learned anything not from Vietnam even.


About sole power, American can no longer fully engage a country like Pakistan, (their own commander said this few weeks ago) let alone other countries like China, Russia or India. Their days are numbered and with the foolish results in Afghanistan even most of NATO doubt their skill at foreign policy. Perhaps the 1980s and 1990s was golden time for them when Soviet Union went down. But as power shifts to the east, America is no longer a super power. Next few years, one more economic doom and they are history.

 

[sunny001]

Well, America being sole super power is relative to what you think.

They could oust Saddam in a conventional war but what about Taliban and Al-Qaeda??

Most of the wanted people by CIA are still...WANTED.

9 years and they still haven't learned anything not from Vietnam even.


About sole power, American can no longer fully engage a country like Pakistan, (their own commander said this few weeks ago) let alone other countries like China, Russia or India. Their days are numbered and with the foolish results in Afghanistan even most of NATO doubt their skill at foreign policy. Perhaps the 1980s and 1990s was golden time for them when Soviet Union went down. But as power shifts to the east, America is no longer a super power. Next few years, one more economic doom and they are history.

I wasn't talking about military issues. Political decisions are not just military related. Economically US is still 3 times bigger than China, the second largest economy in the world. Ability to attack a country is not the sole measure of a super power.

 

[indian navy]

well no doubt china is the real issue for usa and uk

 

[Chinaownseverything]

I wasn't talking about military issues. Political decisions are not just military related. Economically US is still 3 times bigger than China, the second largest economy in the world. Ability to attack a country is not the sole measure of a super power.

The USA also has the LARGEST trade deficit in the world, LARGEST national debt in the world, and inferior infrastructure compared to most other developed countries.

While Japan has a HIGH national debt, they also have a HUGE trade surplus, thats why nobody is worrying the Japan is going to collapse.

Right now USA is a 6 foot tall bodybuilder that can bench press 700 lbs but he has been diagnosed HIV and cancer.

USA economy may have size, but everybody agrees that the USA is unhealthy especially compared to China in number 2 position who has the highest FOREX reserves and highest trade surplus.

List of countries by current account balance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sunny001]

The USA also has the LARGEST trade deficit in the world, LARGEST national debt in the world, and inferior infrastructure compared to most other developed countries.

While Japan has a HIGH national debt, they also have a HUGE trade surplus, thats why nobody is worrying the Japan is going to collapse.

Right now USA is a 6 foot tall bodybuilder that can bench press 700 lbs but he has been diagnosed HIV and cancer.

USA economy may have size, but everybody agrees that the USA is unhealthy especially compared to China in number 2 position who has the highest FOREX reserves and highest trade surplus.

List of countries by current account balance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You forgot reserve currency is still dollar. When shove comes to push, they can always devalue dollar by printing more of them, thus effectively diminishing forex reserves for most countries including China, while at the same time paying off their debts.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

You forgot foreign currency is still dollar. When shove comes to push, they can always devalue dollar by printing more of them, thus effectively negating forex reserves for most countries including China

Printing more dollars will devalue the dollar, since the USA economy is based on the dollar the USA real GDP will fall, their nominal GDP will rise but all the GDP's of countries that do not use the dollar will rise even more due to their currencies being stronger when stacked up next to the dollar.

Printing out more money hurts the USA more than it hurts China because they will have to pay $50,000,000 to get a barrel of oil. China will actually benefit because they will have a stronger yen.