US engaging in gunboat diplomacy: China

[chauism]

CHINA is a communist republic totalitarian state with one-party government. As we have seen that does not work.

That easy to see for your self, no communist goverment has ever created a state any where as prosperous as the USA, Europe or even S Korea Allmost all communist goverments have collapsed. Chinas communist goverment is are in the process of collapsing as we speak. Government controls such as China has over production and prices will never create an efficient outcome as the self regulated market.

Yes democracy can lead to excess, but that is not allways true.

First of all, China is not what you have said. Have you seen a communist country with a national slogan of "getting rich is glorious"? Have you seen a communist state without free universal medical care and free educations.

We have seen nothing in modern history that resemble what China is today with the exception of maybe what Third Reich was without the idealogical mumbo jumbos and a Fuhrer. And it is definitely not on the edge of collapse and far from it.


China's authoritarian capitalism undermines Western values, argue three new books.

So the Western values are threatened by a collapsing system. Just how fragile the western values are I wonder?

 

[topjumper]

CHINA is a communist republic totalitarian state with one-party government. As we have seen that does not work.

That easy to see for your self, no communist goverment has ever created a state any where as prosperous as the USA, Europe or even S Korea Allmost all communist goverments have collapsed. Chinas communist goverment is are in the process of collapsing as we speak. Government controls such as China has over production and prices will never create an efficient outcome as the self regulated market.

Yes democracy can lead to excess, but that is not allways true.

I find my opinion differs from yours in almost every single sentence, so I'm not going to argue with you as people have done in almost every single thread here, let's just say we agree to disagree. Result is the best judge of everything, you can objectively look at the results achieved by the current chinese system and give your critics then, and as a starting pointing for your research if you are interested -- China does not deploy total central planning for market development at all, neither is US embraced in total market self-regulation.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

I find my opinion differs from yours in almost every single sentence, so I'm not going to argue with you as people have done in almost every single thread here, let's just say we agree to disagree. Result is the best judge of everything, you can objectively look at the results achieved by the current chinese system and give your critics then, and as a starting pointing for your research if you are interested -- China does not deploy total central planning for market development at all, neither is US embraced in total market self-regulation.

Bremmer is confident that over the long term an authoritarian model will prove a poor rival to Western capitalism. Governments that make themselves responsible for economic performance also will have to shoulder the blame when prosperity falters. China, for instance, must continue to push its economic engine at high speed to satisfy consumers' accelerating demands

It is my opinion that China growth is the result of pent up demand due to the failure of communism. Authoritarian countries such as China are going to interfere with the market to the point they are corrupt and inefficient. Its just a matter of time.

 

[topjumper]

In fact it is almost too good as if it came off the blog of some libertarian blog. It would not look out of place on Ron Paul's campaign site or other debt fear mongerers. In fact I could swear I read it somewhere.



Since you aren't a troll like Chinaowns I will answer this question. The weakness Chinaowns refers too is acutely known by any framer of a democratic constitution. The American Constitution, rather than granting legal rights, grants natural rights. The fundamental difference between a republic and a democracy is natural versus legal rights. In terms of voting in politicians who will provide the most benefits, that means that any natural right not guaranteed by the constitution is a legal right and therefore far harder for a politician to grant. The USA is nowhere near single payer healthcare, even though the majority of Americans want it, because single payer healthcare is not a natural right according to the US constitution. Any politician who promises to bribe the electorate with this or that benefit in a republic runs the risk of being attacked by his opponent for damaging the values of the republic. Legal rights can also be taken away. This means that should a benefit be fiscially unsound to the point of bankrupting a country, it can be removed with little fuss compared to natural rights.

Republics do not fall due to poor fiscal restraint as Chinaowns claims. They fall due to extremists on both left and right banding together to topple the republicans, usually from within due to some weakness in the constitution. Consider that most governing political parties do so with 30-40% of the vote. Now in a weak system, the extremists who make up 10-15% per party together with other extremists and remove the republicans from power, then proceed to destroy the system. This is how Hitler came to power. He actually had less than 20% of the vote, mostly 15%, but banded together with other extremists to oust the republicans. This mode of collapse is particularly difficult in a modern republic, because natural rights are guaranteed and not removable by legal measures of any dictator. If the constitution does not have severe weaknesses like the Weimar one, a republic is extremely robust.

Money is controlled by the government, so saying the government will collapse because it owes too much money is ridiculous unless that money is owed to foreigners. And even then only external factors such as those foreigners possessing a superior military or weakness in the constitution can destroy the republic, not simply going broke. Consider the following fact: between 1945 and 2010, one hundred dollars in 1945 money is now worth one thousand dollars. That means that in a short fifty years or so, the US debt will be ten times smaller naturally even if absolutely nothing is done. America will not be at war in Iraq forever, the baby boomers will not be around forever and government run healthcare is actually cheaper than what Americans have now (this is a proven fact with the Canadian and UK systems; the fear is quality will go down not that costs will go up). So even if every American demands healthcare coverage, costs will be lower than if run by corporate fat cats. America spends more public dollars covering a portion of its population than other countries do their whole population, adjusted per capita. That is a fact, so healthcare bankrupting the country is probably false. Same with almost every other benefit.

Interesting argument about the constitution grants "natural" rights, I have to think about what it really means in a fair society. But about the highlighted part about debts, you only mentioned the inflationary aspects of the debt but forgot about the interests on it. So if I lent you $100 in 1940s and you didn't pay it back until 2010, you would have paid the face value of $1000 to me instead of the original face value of $100.

So no you cannot simply sit there do nothing about your current debt and think that 100 years later it'll just diminish by itself due to inflation, by then the billions of debt the US owned to the rest of the world would have become trillions. One thing the US can do (and has done in the past) is to artificially "inflate" away the real debt, meaning it deliberately keeps its interest rates (hence its bond yields) low while the inflation rate is actually higher, so in the long run the interests earned by the creditors cannot off set the inflationary aspects of the debt value, but that leads to a more dangerous consequence on the economy such as this crisis we are currently going through now.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

So if I lent you $100 in 1940s and you didn't pay it back until 2010, you would have paid the face value of $1000 to me instead of the original face value of $100.

No, because interest is paid over time and money decreases in value over time. Money now is worth a lot more than money later and that simple fact is the basis of everything from social security to student loans and your mortgage. You do not have to do anything about debt; only deficit. There is precedent for this. For example after WWI countries had enormous debt and it was never paid off. Most countries never paid off their Marshall Plan debt, absorbing it into their national treasuries. And so on and so on. The USA deficit is already being lowered and once the US is out of Iraq, the bailout and stimulus programs end and so on the deficit will be a low 250 billion. Remember, Clinton slew the deficit and so can any other American President.

Individuals get older and sicker and their income doesn't generally vary a few years after college. Consider that individuals consider it lucky to get a few percent raise in their salary every few years. So as an individual holding onto debt is unsustainable. But countries grow a few percent every single year. Imagine if you got a 5% raise on average every year. You would be a lot less worried about debt.

 

[lcloo]

The world's efficient democracies are looking to a inefficient collapsing communist state for help to recover from financial crisis, I wonder why?

 

[prototype]

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

but if u look in to the very near past it was not the democratic nation which fell apart and tear down,it fact it was communist nations

Yugoslavia
Czechoslovakia
Soviet Union

ur arguments r not supporting any facts,and if u cheak again,whenever a communist nation fall apart the resultant nations r always democracies,ever thought why?think again

 

[prototype]

The world's efficient democracies are looking to a inefficient collapsing communist state for help to recover from financial crisis, I wonder why?

get out of any kind of illusion,u were not the only nation which was recording positive growth at the time of crisis,some democracies was also there

 

[topjumper]

No, because interest is paid over time and money decreases in value over time. Money now is worth a lot more than money later and that simple fact is the basis of everything from social security to student loans and your mortgage. You do not have to do anything about debt; only deficit. There is precedent for this. For example after WWI countries had enormous debt and it was never paid off. Most countries never paid off their Marshall Plan debt, absorbing it into their national treasuries. And so on and so on. The USA deficit is already being lowered and once the US is out of Iraq, the bailout and stimulus programs end and so on the deficit will be a low 250 billion. Remember, Clinton slew the deficit and so can any other American President.

Individuals get older and sicker and their income doesn't generally vary a few years after college. Consider that individuals consider it lucky to get a few percent raise in their salary every few years. So as an individual holding onto debt is unsustainable. But countries grow a few percent every single year. Imagine if you got a 5% raise on average every year. You would be a lot less worried about debt.

Errr, seriously, is this your understanding of what the debt is? No wonder why our consumer based economy is in a state it is in now.

Quote: because interest is paid over time and money decreases in value over time. The maths behind this is so simple I wouldn't even bother to do it here, the bottom line is that as long as your interest payment is higher than the inflation then you would "lose" out. And by the way, it's not that most of the debt by the US government is never paid back, it's simply that they get renewed (i.e. borrow more to pay back the bonds currently maturing), so it is in perpetual debt as long as the world still views it as a credible debtor.

Of course you are correct in arguing that so long as you can always increase your GDP (i.e. create wealth) higher than your interest payments then you are ok, but in reality there is a certain debt/GDP threshold that once crossed, it starts to hurt your growth (i.e. significant portion of wealth created every year cannot be used for developments but paying back the creditors) and affect your ability to borrow more. Also in order to finance the debt payments the government would invariably increase taxes, thus further draining credits out of private sector and hurt its growth (look up the term "crowding out"). Just take a look at the PIIGS countries and tell them that debt is OK, remember this -- budget deficit is not just careless over-spending created by the government itself, it is often caused by the governments inability to finance its ever increasing debt while still maintaining its everyday operations.

 

[TorontoNoctis]

The maths behind this is so simple I wouldn't even bother to do it here, the bottom line is that as long as your interest payment is higher than the inflation then you would "lose" out.

And what guarantee is it that the interest payment is higher than inflation? You do realize it is impossible to know exactly how much M0 is in the system at one point which means inflation is at best an educated guess? This is why libertarian attempts at a zero-inflation economy don't make much sense. And it is in fact the main criticism of the whole system, that it is dependent on "timing" issues and investor ignorance. Anyway, the fact remains that a capitalist economy should not reward investors who want to park their money in safe government bonds rather than private business. This means that in general, bonds should have poor return rates and absolutely not guarantee them to be higher than inflation because inflation is based on many factors besides merely printing money.

Your assumption that the bond system is unsustainable ignores that those who put money in bonds do so for the most safe option possible. They are willing to take a financial hit, to guarantee the safety of their principal by the ultimate monopoly, a government. Proof of this is that cost of living is going up far faster than the rate of inflation. Cost of living is not the same as inflation, not by a long shot. So by putting money into a government bond, an investor is already agreeing to lose real value on his investment, regardless of whether the bond's interest payment is higher or lower than the rate of inflation. What makes you think that an investor would be unwilling to buy bonds lower than the rate of inflation, when they already agree to lose value by purchasing a bond in the first place?

Besides, when I speak of "value" I am not only speaking of quantitative value but qualitative value which is why I brought up mortgages and student loans. Money right now allows me to buy right now and make investments right now which may produce huge economic benefit. Also buying now is cheaper than buying later for many issues such as healthcare and education which will create crisis over decades if unpaid. This is why what you spend your money on is just as important as how much money you spend and one cannot be talked of in isolation of another.

Much of the problem with the PIIGS countries is due to foreign influence (the Euro -- if they had their own currency they would have many more options) and external debt. Consider that the USA, right now has more public and external debt total than those countries combined. So why hasn't it collapsed yet? It hasn't collapsed because the problem with those countries is far more complicated than sovereign debt. For example, Iceland refused to guarantee foreign deposits and by doing so started bank runs and an international crisis. It changed the rules in the middle of the game. Greece has huge entitlement problems including a 35 hour work week and retiring at 60. And so on, and so on. But again, the USA uses its own currency and not the Euro. So it has options with monetary policy and is not as vulnerable to foreign currency speculation.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Have you ever read the US pledge of allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The USA is representative democratic republic.
•Republic — A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them.

How can a government represent the will of its people when 79% of the people are being governed against their will in the USA?

Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed - Rasmussen Reports

Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.

That helps explain why 75% of voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most members of Congress are defeated this November. Just 27% believe their own representative in Congress is the best person for the job.

The book has earned positive reviews from Larry Sabato, Pat Caddell, Bill Kristol, Joe Trippi and others. In Search of Self-Governance is available from Rasmussen Reports and at Amazon.com.

Sixty percent (60%) of voters think that neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today. Thirty-five percent (35%) say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that an entirely new political party is needed to represent the American people.

Nearly half of all voters believe that people randomly selected from the phone book could do as good a job as the current Congress.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Money is controlled by the government, so saying the government will collapse because it owes too much money is ridiculous unless that money is owed to foreigners.

What do you think is going to happen when the "money" owned to the public like social security checks won't be given to the elderly?

What do you think is going to happen when soldiers don't get their pensions?

You don't think that these people will revolt and start rioting because the govt pissed away THEIR money? and now they are FUCKED?

And even then only external factors such as those foreigners possessing a superior military or weakness in the constitution can destroy the republic, not simply going broke. Consider the following fact: between 1945 and 2010, one hundred dollars in 1945 money is now worth one thousand dollars. That means that in a short fifty years or so, the US debt will be ten times smaller naturally even if absolutely nothing is done.

Foreigners can just DUMP your debt, the purchasing power of the USA dollar becomes WORTHLESS overnight.

Lets see how well the USA runs when it is unable to import oil and all the shelves are EMPTY

 

[Patriot]

I am huge admirer of Chinese People.It's amazing how they have built their country and have become the 2nd largest economy but i think these kind of statements are pre-mature.China has yet to reach the status of former Soviet Union or US therefore it should avoid these kind of statements.It should also not try to anger the US until the economy becomes more dependable on local consumer market.If China is smart then it should not disturb US and keeping earning the cash from US Market and once it's own local market is fully developed and Income Per Capita is on par with Western Countries then it should exert totally independent foreign policy.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

but if u look in to the very near past it was not the democratic nation which fell apart and tear down,it fact it was communist nations

Yugoslavia
Czechoslovakia
Soviet Union

ur arguments r not supporting any facts,and if u cheak again,whenever a communist nation fall apart the resultant nations r always democracies,ever thought why?think again

These countries fell apart because of embargoes and the IMF shenanigans

The longest standing governments in world history are all AUTHORITARIAN

On the other hand there have been MANY DEMOCRACIES IN THE PAST

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And they have all collapsed, even the USA collapsed after 100 years falling into civil war

Ever heard of the Roman empire? Guess what happened? The politicians both votes by plundering the treasury and then collapsed from debt. Kind of what you are seeing now in the USA and Europe

 

[anon45]

Foreigners can just DUMP your debt, the purchasing power of the USA dollar becomes WORTHLESS overnight.

Lets see how well the USA runs when it is unable to import oil and all the shelves are EMPTY

1. Dump Canadian debt?

2. Unless your location is wrong, the US is your country too, Why does it sound like you would want to see the market you go to have no food and for the gas station you go to have no oil?

3. I'm pretty sure its not so easy as dump debt = starving and stranded Americans with a continuing ascendence of of other countries, else other governments, certainly the Chinese government, would have done it already with smiles on their faces.