Globalization

[NousDefionsDoc]

What is it? Is it a good or bad thing? Why? What impact does it have on the security environment? Was 9-11 related to globalization?

[Huey14]

Yes and no to it being a good thing. Would seem to benefit the large countrys more than the smaller ones.

IIRC correctly, Free Trade Agreements are part of globalisation. We have one with China coming up- I am against it as I believe it will destroy certain sectors of the local economy. We also want one with the US- I don't. There's little benefit for us in it.

[Roguish Lawyer]

To me, globalization is a description of the results of improvements in transportation (including development of effective preservatives and packaging materials) and communications which have made it possible for someone in Des Moines to have frequent and meaningful interactions with someone in Bangkok. The principal security implication is that distance is less effective as a defense.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yes and no to it being a good thing. Would seem to benefit the large countrys more than the smaller ones.

IIRC correctly, Free Trade Agreements are part of globalisation. We have one with China coming up- I am against it as I believe it will destroy certain sectors of the local economy. We also want one with the US- I don't. There's little benefit for us in it.
How is there little benefit to gaining access to two of the largest markets in the world?

[Bill Harsey]

This may be simple thinking but isn't our (the United States) race to exploit cheap labor in China, resulting in the explosive growth in the Chinese economy, going to cause us serious problems at many levels?

The first problem I can think of is we as a nation are losing and giving away the ability to manufacture our own goods because we are killing entire manufacturing traditions here to export them offshore.

[Huey14]

How is there little benefit to gaining access to two of the largest markets in the world?

Just to note, I've read this and will answer in the morning, so you don't think I'm going to piss off without answering :)

[Roguish Lawyer]

This may be simple thinking but isn't our (the United States) race to exploit cheap labor in China, resulting in the explosive growth in the Chinese economy, going to cause us serious problems at many levels?

The first problem I can think of is we as a nation are losing and giving away the ability to manufacture our own goods because we are killing entire manufacturing traditions here to export them offshore.

Greenhat and D9 should be along shortly. :munchin

[NousDefionsDoc]

This may be simple thinking but isn't our (the United States) race to exploit cheap labor in China, resulting in the explosive growth in the Chinese economy, going to cause us serious problems at many levels?

The first problem I can think of is we as a nation are losing and giving away the ability to manufacture our own goods because we are killing entire manufacturing traditions here to export them offshore.
Less than the risk of a disconnected country of 1,284,303,705 people?

[NousDefionsDoc]

If you look at the countries to which we have deployed troops since the fall of the USSR, they all have a couple of things in common it would seem to me.

Human beings are joiners by nature. They need acceptance. What will happen to Turkey (for example) if they are shut out of the EU? Look at NK - they belong to nothing. They have been left behind.

[Roguish Lawyer]

This may be simple thinking but isn't our (the United States) race to exploit cheap labor in China, resulting in the explosive growth in the Chinese economy, going to cause us serious problems at many levels?

The first problem I can think of is we as a nation are losing and giving away the ability to manufacture our own goods because we are killing entire manufacturing traditions here to export them offshore.

Further to NDD's point, as long as we get to pump MTV and the swimsuit issue in there, we should be fine. ;)

We need capable conventional and nuclear forces too, of course.

[Bill Harsey]

I've always understood that China is becoming dependant uopn the United States market and this makes us partners in trade. There may be some security in that.

I'm plotting the curve on the graph where we will give the upper hand in a big block of economics to China.

[chipw]

This article is interesting and along the lines of what Mr Harsey speaks of.

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/morris/morris022405.html

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yes, competition can cause one to have to work harder. Just another good reason to let slip the dogs of alternative energy sources in my opinion. I think it is absurd that we still use the internal combustion engine over a century after it became popular.

I would rather have the Chinese as competitors in trade than another Cold War.

[twil13]

Globalization is what is what is making China so prevalent in the economic world today. I believe that over time, and the presumption that nations will get along for the most part, globalization will eventually make the economic playing field almost equal. This is one reason why globalization could be viewed as a good thing. But, the problem with this idea is that there are evil nations and people in this world, which once they rise to a level that is on par with the other powers of the world; they just want to be the only ones in this position, thus causing instability. It is also said that globalization causes inequality because the richer countries take advantage of the weaker ones, which I am sure occurs to an extent but I don’t know how much of this goes on. Opening up cultural exchange and free trade was probably one of the reasons why 9/11 was actually able to be carried out successfully. Perhaps we were so used to allowing goods, services, and people in and out that we let our guard down.

America saw huge economic growth and is currently the main super power, but a nation's growth starts to level off at a certain point. Now we are seeing China have a huge growth in its economy, but there isn't a point in the foreseeable future in which they will plateau. It is really crazy how much we are dependent on what we get from China as far as common goods and just about everything else. I agree with you NDD, on upping the urgency on alternative fuel research and capability. This is one area that could allow the US to make large gains in the global market if we could be the main pioneers in this field.

One last thing on my theory about equalization of economic standing. I guess I see America as trying to help out in other parts of the world and helping the less fortunate, which would seem to agree with my hypothesis. I have a limited scope on most of our foreign affairs, and was wondering if any here that has traveled to more places or has a better understanding on what we do in other countries, to verify that we are trying to make the world better. I mean places other than Iraq and A-stan, because I feel that we are doing well there for the most part. Thanks.

Tony

[Bill Harsey]

This article is interesting and along the lines of what Mr Harsey speaks of.

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/morris/morris022405.html
Powerful stuff, thanks for linking that.
We have been impacted by China for a while now because of their voracious use of steel. This has increased our prices and impacted availability of even fine tools steels made in the United States.

The captains of industry I have contact with tell me "standby, this isn't getting better."

[NousDefionsDoc]

it sounds like you think it is fine, as long as the US is making the rules?
But, the problem with this idea is that there are evil nations and people in this world, which once they rise to a level that is on par with the other powers of the world; they just want to be the only ones in this position, thus causing instability.
There are many who say this about us.

Nuclear non-proliferation and human rights are also products of globalization, are they not?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Powerful stuff, thanks for linking that.
We have been impacted by China for a while now because of their voracious use of steel. This has increased our prices and impacted availability of even fine tools steels made in the United States.

The captains of industry I have contact with tell me "standby, this isn't getting better."
I'm not being a smart ass - is there a finite quantity of steel in the world?

[Bill Harsey]

I'm not being a smart ass - is there a finite quantity of steel in the world?
There is plenty of iron but the alloys that make it into steel, then tool steels are getting hard to come by.

Recycle gives us plenty of iron/mild steel base but it takes the other elements to alloy steel into usable structural or tool steels.

For example, firearms barrels have to have some molybdenum and chromium to be strong enough to stand up to the pressures generated by modern powders.

These alloys are among the ones getting hard to find.

[twil13]

it sounds like you think it is fine, as long as the US is making the rules?

There are many who say this about us.

Nuclear non-proliferation and human rights are also products of globalization, are they not?

Do you believe that the US is a "bad guy", or are we really trying to help? I would say that overall we try to do good, although there are necessary evils in every action that we take. What tends to happen is many of the side effects of making the world a better place are blown out of proportion to look horrendous, when in fact they may just be a minute part of what is really happening. I believe that the idea of nuclear non-proliferation has stemmed off of globalization. Because globalization, many countries can and do have access to nuclear materials, but I believe that many of these nations have proven that they aren't "mature" enough to handle them. I guess I don't know what you mean by human rights being a product of globalization, since I view them as an idealogy of society.

Tony

[jatx]

I'm not being a smart ass - is there a finite quantity of steel in the world?

For all practical purposes, the supply of raw materials needed to produce steel is infinite. However, at any given time, our capacity to extract and process those materials is limited by the time and capital investment required to upgrade our production infrastructure. The steel production market is not like, say, electricity - where peaker plants can be switched on quickly to take advantage of price spikes with a more expensive production technique.

We will not run out of steel, but we may very likely exit the business of producing it in the same quantities if anti-dumping and other protections are weakened. How you feel about that is another matter.

EDIT: Bill, your point about secondary inputs is well taken.

[NousDefionsDoc]

There is plenty of iron but the alloys that make it into steel, then tool steels are getting hard to come by.

Recycle gives us plenty of iron/mild steel base but it takes the other elements to alloy steel into usable structural or tool steels.

For example, firearms barrels have to have some molybdenum and chromium to be strong enough to stand up to the pressures generated by modern powders.

These alloys are among the ones getting hard to find.
Thank you. I honestly had no idea.

[Bill Harsey]

Thank you. I honestly had no idea.
I wouldn't either except my day job involves occasionally meeting with the guys who make this stuff.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Do you believe that the US is a "bad guy", or are we really trying to help? I would say that overall we try to do good, although there are necessary evils in every action that we take. What tends to happen is many of the side effects of making the world a better place are blown out of proportion to look horrendous, when in fact they may just be a minute part of what is really happening. I believe that the idea of nuclear non-proliferation has stemmed off of globalization. Because globalization, many countries can and do have access to nuclear materials, but I believe that many of these nations have proven that they aren't "mature" enough to handle them. I guess I don't know what you mean by human rights being a product of globalization, since I view them as an idealogy of society.

Tony
Trying to do good and actually doing good can be two very different things.

Human rights, do you think our grandfathers cared or even knew about genocide in Africa 70 years ago? When the world is a smaller place because of communications, it is much harder to hide things like that. Since the advent of the internet and the pajamahadeen, it has became practically impossible for a dissident of any name to be "disappeared". The court of public opinion is much more an issue now than it was even a few years ago, all because of connectivity. Aid is now dependent on compliance with HR measures, etc.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Ok, so what do we do about it? Do we somehow stop China from growing? Somehow get them to revert back to what they were? Stop selling them steel and force all our "partners" to do the same?

Or perhaps we implement a policy of isolationism and keep all our for us?

And we could do the same with oil...oh wait, no we can't.

I think we get into trouble when we start doing things like this. Some countries can get away with it and nobody cares - we can't.

Again, look at the countries where we have had to deploy troops since the fall of the USSR. What do they have in common?

[twil13]

Ok, so what do we do about it? Do we somehow stop China from growing? Somehow get them to revert back to what they were? Stop selling them steel and force all our "partners" to do the same?

Or perhaps we implement a policy of isolationism and keep all our for us?

And we could do the same with oil...oh wait, no we can't.

I think we get into trouble when we start doing things like this. Some countries can get away with it and nobody cares - we can't.

Again, look at the countries where we have had to deploy troops since the fall of the USSR. What do they have in common?


This is a good point. With our current oil consumption, there is no way we can be self sufficient. China can't either, but they seem to be aligning themselves for long term relationships with large oil producing countries, and these are countries that we don't think to highly of. I think that that is a scary thought. Chavez seems a little crazy with the remarks he has said lately.

Isolation won't work, and there is no way to stop China from growing. Keeping good diplomatic relations is about the only way to keep our trade relations going, but there seems to be so many people with an anti-American train-of-thought

If in say 15-20 years, the US becomes obsolete as far as maintaining the economies of other nations and they can now rely on China. What happens then? We find ourselves on the "bad" side of globalization. Now I doubt that something like this would happen, but there is so much anti-American BS out there these days, that it wouldn't surprise me if there was a major attempt to take us out of the position of super power.

Just my thoughts.

Tony

[boat guy]

While this thread may give rise to a million viewpoints, I will try and be brief and stay on track of security.
The United States may be one of few nations that could possibly become isolationist. By that I mean fully self reliant requiring no import or export to survive.
Given the size of our oil reserves we very feasibly could become isolationist and with the advent of alternative fuels make the switch without skipping a beat.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Sup_image_Reserves.htm

True Isolationism however has not worked for any country for any length of time and would pose a definite problem for our chosen way of life.

Instead, we must promote our way of life for the world. While it may be argued that there is nearly no alturistic act, short of diving on a grenade to save fellows, we are in the business of promoting global peace and freedom. Many of our actions as a nation may have had arguably negative consequences, but our motives are in the right place...In order to maintain our freedom and way of life, others must enjoy similar freedom and prosperity.

Our own security here relies ever more so upon global stability. As RL pointed out, globalization has ensured that distance is no longer a defense. Until all nations have some form of freedom and relative prosperity we will continue to be both the subject of praise and scorn.

[twil13]

The US uses 20million barrels of oil a day, and that is increasing by 500k each day. IF we only used 20 million a day, and we had no increasing needs for oil, then the reserve alone would last for a little over 27 years. The thing is, it is a reserve and not a main supply. We don't have a main supply big enough to sustain everything here. If we isolated ourselves, our oil use would increase a lot due to the fact that we would have to produce so many more things for our survival. Maybe after we tap ANWR we may find there is much more oil there than once thought. I don't want to be isolated anyways, I like imported goods. :D

Tony

[CommoGeek]

We tried that with another Asian country some years ago and the result was a bad movie starring Ben Affleck.

To me the problem is one of labor: we're exporting critical job skills to China and elsewhere and should we ever need to be isolationist or have another WWII type manufacturing moment we will not have the trained craftsmen to make that happen. Resources are a moot point if no one can build anything with them.

To your last question: not much of an economy (though some have the resources), internal dissent, they were isolationist, and Muslims.

Ok, so what do we do about it? Do we somehow stop China from growing? Somehow get them to revert back to what they were? Stop selling them steel and force all our "partners" to do the same?

Or perhaps we implement a policy of isolationism and keep all our for us?

And we could do the same with oil...oh wait, no we can't.

I think we get into trouble when we start doing things like this. Some countries can get away with it and nobody cares - we can't.

Again, look at the countries where we have had to deploy troops since the fall of the USSR. What do they have in common?

[Bill Harsey]

To me the problem is one of labor: we're exporting critical job skills to China and elsewhere...

We are training other nations how to kick our ass in the world economy.
Is this the right thing to do?

Edited to add this,
I've never thought even once about being isolationist and that was not my direction of thought.

Second question, if some other country makes everything you need, could that cause other serious problems?

[NousDefionsDoc]

we're exporting critical job skills to China and elsewhere and should we ever need to be isolationist or have another WWII type manufacturing moment we will not have the trained craftsmen to make that happen.

I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe this is happening in numbers large enough to impact the US. There is no shortage of anything that I can see in the US. I think this is alarmist and based on something other than hard data. I'm not accusing you, I think you are simply repeating what someone else has said.

How do you export a skill set? What skills sets are we losing? If I train a Chinese soldier to fire a pistol, does that mean I can no longer fore my own?

Are you talking about the tech jobs going to Asia? What exactly are we losing iin such numbers that we will cease to function?

[CommoGeek]

We are training other nations how to kick our ass in the world economy.
Is this the right thing to do?

We aren't training them as much as allowing our companies to export our manufacturing centers overseas. As consumers, stockholders, and capitalists we hold CEOs to the bottom line. So, to make us happy with greater profit margins they go where the labor pool works for less, less litigation, no unions, etc.

We have a wonderful little potential in IT: there exists a capability to have a number of our workers work from home as programmers, database admins, etc. What we've done is outsourced this to India and elsewhere. I know as a father if I could work from home and not have to drive to work, spend time in traffic, the whole minor pollution thing, etc. I would jump on it. We can't because those jobs are gone.

So, do we become capitalists with morals and ethics and pay higher prices for our goods, or do we lose the jobs but pay less for those same goods since the cost to make them is now less? Also, what jobs do we as a country try to get back? All of them? A certain perentage? Certain types?

More questions than answers in this thread.

[jatx]

Don't blame trade for US job losses

The enormous US trade deficit has caused many observers to conclude that international trade, particularly a massive flood of imported goods from China and of services from India, is to blame for the loss of US jobs since 2000. In fact, research shows that only 11 percent of the job losses in manufacturing—about 314,000 jobs—can be attributed to trade, and even in this instance the real culprit was falling exports, not rising imports. Offshoring in the services sector destroyed even fewer jobs. The real causes of job losses were weak domestic demand, rapid productivity growth, and the dollar's strength.

The take-away
Protectionism won't address the causes of the loss of US manufacturing jobs in recent years. The real solutions—stimulating domestic demand, cutting the budget deficit, and pushing countries with artificially low currencies to allow them to appreciate against the dollar—are harder to implement but more likely to boost employment.

[Bill Harsey]

I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe this is happening in numbers large enough to impact the US. There is no shortage of anything that I can see in the US. I think this is alarmist and based on something other than hard data. I'm not accusing you, I think you are simply repeating what someone else has said.

How do you export a skill set? What skills sets are we losing? If I train a Chinese soldier to fire a pistol, does that mean I can no longer fore my own?

Are you talking about the tech jobs going to Asia? What exactly are we losing iin such numbers that we will cease to function?
Here is my attempt at a big picture analysis based on what I see around me.
Most high schools are getting rid of shop classes, no more mechanical classes, welding or machine shops. There is an attitude that it is above us to get our hands dirty.
Where do you think the captains of great (inovative, leading, etc.) industry come from?

Basics are basics, we aren't teaching people how to do "things mechanical" anymore. This will take a generation to play out.

How much of a percentage loss in these skills will make the difference?
Of course there will always be those "that can''.

[vsvo]

Ok, so what do we do about it? Do we somehow stop China from growing?For starters, Beijing needs to decouple the yuan from the dollar. Since 1994, China has pegged the yuan at about 8.3 to the dollar. As the dollar started falling in 2002, the yuan rode right down with it, and China got a free ride. Some economists estimate that the yuan is under-valued by up to 30%. Some numbers:
- China's economy grew 9.5% in 2004
- China's exports grew 35.4% in 2004, totaling $593 billion
- China enjoys a bilateral trade surplus with the US of $162 billion
- China's annual trade surplus is $32 billion, so it's importing a lot too
Moving right away to a free-floating yuan is not going to do anyone any good, since the world does not need another Asian financial crisis. Economists have suggested a two-step process, starting with increasing the band in which the yuan is allowed to trade from 1% to 5%, then pegging the yuan to a "basket" of foreign currencies consisting of the monies of China's top trading partners.

I'm all for globalization, but everyone has to do their part. The Euros are wailing as the dollar continues to plummet. This is making their exports non-competitive, thus hurting their economies. But if they would fix their economies and generate domestic demand, they wouldn't depend so much on exports. Then they can start buying more great American imports. This is the "growth deficit" mentioned by Secretary Snow, and helps explain the US nonchanlance with the dollar's fall. Japan is still stagnant, as are other Asian economies. That's part of the reason why even though the dollar is weak, we are not seeing a significant improvement in our trade deficit.

Of course we deserve most of the blame for our trade deficit. Americans cannot resist spending, with a lot of money going to imports. But then that spending helped to prop up the economy, so there's no easy answer. If we can somehow break out of the addicition and save more, we would be better off. Maybe it's time for a consumption tax like a VAT. :munchin

[The Reaper]

Try and find a tool and die maker or a sheet metal former these days.

Look at the numbers from 30 years ago in these trades versus now, and the average age of those workers today.

Note also the excellent wage that unions demanded for those workers.

While they helped make the workplace much safer, they have also killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

"Them jobs are going boys, and they ain't comin' back.

To your hometown."

TR

[CommoGeek]

Basics are basics, we aren't teaching people how to do "things mechanical" anymore. This will take a generation to play out.

I agree. I don't think we'll see the effects in a few years, more like 15-20 or so.

What I'm curious about is when the jobs go what will those workers do and how will the wages of their new jobs stack up against the old job?

We are becoming a counsumer nation and not a manufacturing nation.

[The Reaper]

I agree. I don't think we'll see the effects in a few years, more like 15-20 or so.

What I'm curious about is when the jobs go what will those workers do and how will the wages of their new jobs stack up against the old job?

We are becoming a counsumer nation and not a manufacturing nation.

Service industry, for a while.

Then those jobs will be exported to the extent possible to where wages are cheaper.

Think the rest of the world's wages will rise to meet ours, or ours will fall to meet theirs?

TR

[Bill Harsey]

vsvo,
Good point. That is a big issue.

I've personally watched a particular industry race to China even while the "home" factory could compete and do well against overseas production, already having all the skilled employees in place and working.

The reason stated is that's it's "easier", no messy employees to deal with.
Yes that is just a few hundred American jobs gone, never to come back.

I've already seen "spin-off" companies succeed because the business concept was taken overseas and the folks TRAINED by United States companies figure out how to do it without them.

The UPS just came by a few minutes ago to drop off the 130 US dollar power screwdriver I ordered for assembly/disassembly of all the screws in folding knives. I bought a Metabo brand tool because it was a German based company (quality tool) and it was the only tool that has that much torque in a small package suitable for working at the bench with.
Country of origin, PRC.


I can't win.

[Bill Harsey]

NDD,
I have nothing against any other country producing goods/services at any level of quality for the world market.
My concern is that this nation is not doing the things that keep us competitive and fear is that it is going to hurt us.

Even that damn Metabo driver looks like a good tool and I'm not sending it back unless it fails.

My question relating to the Globalization is this:

How important is it to the security of any country is it to be able to produce their own stuff?

[The Reaper]

NDD,
I have nothing against any other country producing goods/services at any level of quality for the world market.
My concern is that this nation is not doing the things that keep us competitive and fear is that it is going to hurt us.

Even that damn Metabo driver looks like a good tool and I'm not sending it back unless it fails.

My question relating to the Globalization is this:

How important is it to the security of any country is it to be able to produce their own stuff?

That depends on what that country's role is.

TR

[Peregrino]

That depends on what that country's role is.

TR

A good example is the article in Scientific American about a year (+/-) ago when the last US manufacturer of rare earth magnets was bought during a corporate merger and then divested to a Chinese firm. Who promptly packed up the entire manufacturing facility and shipped it to China in SeaLand containers. BTW - most/all of our most sophisticated weapons systems and delivery platforms depend on rare earth magnets, usually in the guidance system. Congress complained and nothing happened, IIRC. FWIW - Peregrino

[Bill Harsey]

Peregrino,
That's an interesting example.

[Bravo1-3]

This is something of a hot button topic for me. Free trade only works when the parties involved play fairly. China, and to a lesser extent Europe are waging economic war on this country, and we're happy to sell them the bullets to do it at everyday low prices.

China has issues that make it not just "difficult", but impossible to compete with. They have NO incentive for production efficiency because of their infinite labor pool and full employment policy. If they have to have 5 people to do the job of 1, so be it. If they have to use 5x the resources to produce quantity X of product, so be it.

They actually have reason to not be interested in efficient production. But they use their banking system and government like a weapon, fronting the money to buy whatever is needed to remain in the market, and artificially compensating to stave off negative feedback like the export effect. They can't do this forever, but they don't HAVE to. All they need to do is keep it up long enough for the other economic powers to drop out.

The europeans have almost had it. They didn't cheat by devaluing their currency, and the export effect has bitten them in the ass. Now all they can do is use indirect tariffs and subsidies to keep afloat, and even that isn't working.

I give it 2 years until gasoline costs more than $5 per gallon in the US because of Chinas inefficient use (and thus excessive buying) of oil. Ask yourself what that is going to do to the US economy? Somehow we've managed to absorb gas prices in the $2 range without an inflationary spike, but I thnk that's going to change this summer as prices get into the mid to high $2's and low $3's.

Sound a bit negative? Does to me too, but that's how I see it.

[brownapple]

We are training other nations how to kick our ass in the world economy.
Is this the right thing to do?

Edited to add this,
I've never thought even once about being isolationist and that was not my direction of thought.

Second question, if some other country makes everything you need, could that cause other serious problems?

It's business. You train others to do your job so you can move up into another function.

[brownapple]

This is something of a hot button topic for me. Free trade only works when the parties involved play fairly. China, and to a lesser extent Europe are waging economic war on this country, and we're happy to sell them the bullets to do it at everyday low prices.

China has issues that make it not just "difficult", but impossible to compete with. They have NO incentive for production efficiency because of their infinite labor pool and full employment policy. If they have to have 5 people to do the job of 1, so be it. If they have to use 5x the resources to produce quantity X of product, so be it.

They actually have reason to not be interested in efficient production. But they use their banking system and government like a weapon, fronting the money to buy whatever is needed to remain in the market, and artificially compensating to stave off negative feedback like the export effect. They can't do this forever, but they don't HAVE to. All they need to do is keep it up long enough for the other economic powers to drop out.

The europeans have almost had it. They didn't cheat by devaluing their currency, and the export effect has bitten them in the ass. Now all they can do is use indirect tariffs and subsidies to keep afloat, and even that isn't working.

I give it 2 years until gasoline costs more than $5 per gallon in the US because of Chinas inefficient use (and thus excessive buying) of oil. Ask yourself what that is going to do to the US economy? Somehow we've managed to absorb gas prices in the $2 range without an inflationary spike, but I thnk that's going to change this summer as prices get into the mid to high $2's and low $3's.

Sound a bit negative? Does to me too, but that's how I see it.

But it doesn't entirely work.

Industries that moved to China (Knits, sports shoes, harddrives) have moved back to Thailand. Malaysia and other nations, because of that inefficiency... because it creates quality issues that negatively impact on bottom line.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Ok, first of all everybody quit saying "fair" - there is no fair in business. Anymore than there is in combat.

My concern is that this nation is not doing the things that keep us competitive and fear is that it is going to hurt us.
This I can agree with. We have to quit bitching about the Chinese and the EU and do what we can do here at home. US workers are simply not competitive on anything but quality. Look at California and all the problems they have with workman's comp etc. You've got the UAW kicking the Marines out of their parking lots and ruining the car industry. When I was roughnecking as a kid, the steel workers unionized themselves out of business, then came to Texas to work in the oilfield and tried to do the same thing (should have heard the toolpusher's answers to that one).

The old rules don't apply anymore and we've got to change them. When I was a kid, everybody's goal was to get on with a Exxon or Texaco, work until 65 and then enjoy retirement. Now you're lucky if you stay with the same company for 3 years. It has changed.

Are we still the world's inventers? I don't know anymore. Look at our school system. Instead of teaching the 3 Rs, we have teachers telling kids to protest and write hate letters to soldiers. And that's where it all starts. Go to anyone of these growing countries and you see their kids sitting at their desks like little soldiers - learning, competing. The Kid is in the 4th grade and is already into Algebra and Calculas, computers, etc. He has already passed my ability to help him in two or three subjects. Are US kids in public schools the same way? I don't see the results of that in the teens when I go up there.

In Texas, I see a lot of people drawing unemployment, bitching about SS and complaining the Mexicans are taking their jobs. I don't see a lot of people working and going to school at night. Just my impression.

Our jobs aren't running to China or India, we're air mailing them on a silver platter.

As far as the globalization goes, the last time globalization was stopped was in the 1930s. Our isolationism contributed greatly to it IMO - and we got the great depression out of it. When we make the rules - everybody seems to do ok. we made the rules after WWII - and we got a Cold War instead of a hot one for it. When we don't make the rules, when we don't step up to the plate - like after the USSR fell and Clinton let us flounder around with chaos theory - things go to shit.

We are the only superpower in the world right now. We have the only Navy capable of prohjecting any real power, our military is incredibly efficient, our economy has bounced back failry well from the busted tech bubble and 9-11. We need to step up, decide what the new rules are going to be, and sell it to the rest of the world - or at least those parts of it that we can. It matters little if we play "fair" and everybody else doesn't. We are the ones that suffer, so we are the ones that have to fix it. When the US doesn't take the lead, the world gets in trouble - whether they admit it or not.

[The Reaper]

It's business. You train others to do your job so you can move up into another function.

That appears to me to be an oversimplification.

The heavy industrial base of this country is evaporating virtually overnight.

I live here in NC with a bunch of displaced textile and furniture workers whose families have worked the mills for 5 generations.

Thus far, opportunities for them to "move up" have been pretty slim, unless clerking the late night shift at the Stop and Rob or pushing burgers for a high school junior manager strike you as a "move up".

You really have to be here to see it, it is a tragedy.

Thanks, Slick Willie for MFN for China!

TR

[brownapple]

Their responsibility to prepare themselves to move up, TR. Fact is that textiles have been steadily leaving the US because they are not viable in the US. The textile industry tried all sorts of ways to get people to pay the higher prices required of US labor (remember the ad campaigns about looking for the union label) and none were adequate. An insufficient portion of the market is impressed by where something is made unless they perceive it as having a direct effect on quality (as Oshkosh managed). Even then, with the improvement in quality from SE Asia, many of the quality focused brands have moved as well. The reality of competitiveness. Compete or you go out of business.

So what do you suggest those textile firms in NC should have done? Driven themselves to bankruptcy in order to keep those people you are concerned with in jobs for an extra six months or year?

[brownapple]

Ok, first of all everybody quit saying "fair" - there is no fair in business. Anymore than there is in combat.


This I can agree with. We have to quit bitching about the Chinese and the EU and do what we can do here at home. US workers are simply not competitive on anything but quality. Look at California and all the problems they have with workman's comp etc. You've got the UAW kicking the Marines out of their parking lots and ruining the car industry. When I was roughnecking as a kid, the steel workers unionized themselves out of business, then came to Texas to work in the oilfield and tried to do the same thing (should have heard the toolpusher's answers to that one).

The old rules don't apply anymore and we've got to change them. When I was a kid, everybody's goal was to get on with a Exxon or Texaco, work until 65 and then enjoy retirement. Now you're lucky if you stay with the same company for 3 years. It has changed.

Are we still the world's inventers? I don't know anymore. Look at our school system. Instead of teaching the 3 Rs, we have teachers telling kids to protest and write hate letters to soldiers. And that's where it all starts. Go to anyone of these growing countries and you see their kids sitting at their desks like little soldiers - learning, competing. The Kid is in the 4th grade and is already into Algebra and Calculas, computers, etc. He has already passed my ability to help him in two or three subjects. Are US kids in public schools the same way? I don't see the results of that in the teens when I go up there.

In Texas, I see a lot of people drawing unemployment, bitching about SS and complaining the Mexicans are taking their jobs. I don't see a lot of people working and going to school at night. Just my impression.

Our jobs aren't running to China or India, we're air mailing them on a silver platter.

As far as the globalization goes, the last time globalization was stopped was in the 1930s. Our isolationism contributed greatly to it IMO - and we got the great depression out of it. When we make the rules - everybody seems to do ok. we made the rules after WWII - and we got a Cold War instead of a hot one for it. When we don't make the rules, when we don't step up to the plate - like after the USSR fell and Clinton let us flounder around with chaos theory - things go to shit.

We are the only superpower in the world right now. We have the only Navy capable of prohjecting any real power, our military is incredibly efficient, our economy has bounced back failry well from the busted tech bubble and 9-11. We need to step up, decide what the new rules are going to be, and sell it to the rest of the world - or at least those parts of it that we can. It matters little if we play "fair" and everybody else doesn't. We are the ones that suffer, so we are the ones that have to fix it. When the US doesn't take the lead, the world gets in trouble - whether they admit it or not.

Very well said, NDD

[The Reaper]

Their responsibility to prepare themselves to move up, TR. Fact is that textiles have been steadily leaving the US because they are not viable in the US. The textile industry tried all sorts of ways to get people to pay the higher prices required of US labor (remember the ad campaigns about looking for the union label) and none were adequate. An insufficient portion of the market is impressed by where something is made unless they perceive it as having a direct effect on quality (as Oshkosh managed). Even then, with the improvement in quality from SE Asia, many of the quality focused brands have moved as well. The reality of competitiveness. Compete or you go out of business.

So what do you suggest those textile firms in NC should have done? Driven themselves to bankruptcy in order to keep those people you are concerned with in jobs for an extra six months or year?

Sure.

Fuck 'em.

Its just business, right? And they are just peons, anyway.

Lock the gates, ship the machines to China, and tell 'em to hit the bricks and "move up".

I would say that is pretty short-sighted planning.

How many Chinese do you think buy high-end furniture and designer sheets?

When they have moved enough jobs overseas and left enough Americans un-/underemployed, who is going to buy their wares?

TR

[brownapple]

Sure.

Fuck 'em.

Its just business, right? And they are just peons, anyway.

Lock the gates, ship the machines to China, and tell 'em to hit the bricks and "move up".

I would say that is pretty short-sighted planning.

How many Chinese do you think buy high-end furniture and designer sheets?

When they have moved enough jobs overseas and left enough Americans un-/underemployed, who is going to buy their wares?

TR


Don't know about Chinese, but Thailand is the number 2 market in the world for Mercedes Benz sales (behind only Germany). This part of the world does buy high-end quality merchandize.

And you still haven't given a solution, just bitched about what you perceive as a problem. The textile industry has been moving out for over 30 years, first to Venezuala and other points south, then to Thailand, now to Vietnam and China.. it isn't like it is anything new.

[vsvo]

....

We are the only superpower in the world right now. We have the only Navy capable of prohjecting any real power, our military is incredibly efficient, our economy has bounced back failry well from the busted tech bubble and 9-11. We need to step up, decide what the new rules are going to be, and sell it to the rest of the world - or at least those parts of it that we can. It matters little if we play "fair" and everybody else doesn't. We are the ones that suffer, so we are the ones that have to fix it. When the US doesn't take the lead, the world gets in trouble - whether they admit it or not.Excellent points NDD. I agree. The dollar is still king, and the US economy is too important to a significant chunk of the world.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Check this out:

"But as we have seen with Al Qaeda, there are also groups of individuals within societies that reject the notion that their "homeland" (read caliphate) should join this larger community of states that define globalization's Functioning Core. They fear that by joining this modern - or "Western' - system of rules, their tradional society will be forever damaged and ultimately perverted. (Pentagon's New Map T.P.M Barnett, G.P. Putnam's Sons 2004.) (parenthesis mine).

The thinking is that they need to keep the population disconnected to maintain control. The mullahs are a prime example in my opinion. Connected implies educated or informed. The mullahs, especially those illiterate backwoods bastards running the madrasas in the villes, need to keep the gen pop ignorant to maintain their status. Look at the damage educated women are doing to them now. That has to be their worst nightmare and explains a lot about the practical reasons for keeping them down - the teachings of the Qur'an aside.

I don't see this as much different than the communists did with their populations. Keep them in the dark and they won't know what they're missing out on. This is what I'm talking about with engaging. And we can learn some things from them too.

I remember back when the Japanese were buying up car plants and property in the US. Everybody said we'd all be speaking Japanese in a few years. Well, what happened? Their shit fell through the cracks, just like everybody elses does when they grow too fast and they don't change the rules to meet the new situation. They didn't play fair with us either, remember that? They don't seem to be in the news much anymore as far as "taking over the US".

Watch what happens to the Chinese with this outrageous growth.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Because of the economic rhetoric associated with it, I also think the term "globalization" may have out lived its usefulnees and may in fact be counter-productive.

I don't have an alternative to offer.

[brownapple]

Check this out:

"But as we have seen with Al Qaeda, there are also groups of individuals within societies that reject the notion that their "homeland" (read caliphate) should join this larger community of states that define globalization's Functioning Core. They fear that by joining this modern - or "Western' - system of rules, their tradional society will be forever damaged and ultimately perverted. (Pentagon's New Map T.P.M Barnett, G.P. Putnam's Sons 2004.) (parenthesis mine).

The thinking is that they need to keep the population disconnected to maintain control. The mullahs are a prime example in my opinion. Connected implies educated or informed. The mullahs, especially those illiterate backwoods bastards running the madrasas in the villes, need to keep the gen pop ignorant to maintain their status. Look at the damage educated women are doing to them now. That has to be their worst nightmare and explains a lot about the practical reasons for keeping them down - the teachings of the Qur'an aside.

I don't see this as much different than the communists did with their populations. Keep them in the dark and they won't know what they're missing out on. This is what I'm talking about with engaging. And we can learn some things from them too.

I remember back when the Japanese were buying up car plants and property in the US. Everybody said we'd all be speaking Japanese in a few years. Well, what happened? Their shit fell through the cracks, just like everybody elses does when they grow too fast and they don't change the rules to meet the new situation. They didn't play fair with us either, remember that? They don't seem to be in the news much anymore as far as "taking over the US".

Watch what happens to the Chinese with this outrageous growth.

Bingo.

And that also is why nations like Indonesia and Malaysia are progressive overall. They are exposed to the benefits of globalization. They are taking advantage of it. They are engaged and moving forward. And only a small % of them wants to go back to the "good old days".

[Huey14]

Well, I'm still going to learn Chinese regardless of if they start getting smaller.

NDD, the discussion has evolved, would you like me to still answer your question to me?

[Bill Harsey]

It's business. You train others to do your job so you can move up into another function.
Greenhat, You'd make a good modern business manager.

Here is the problem, you can't put your entire workforce into white collar management positions who then manage the jobs and product being produced overseas which in turn is then imported back home to sell to themselves

[NousDefionsDoc]

Greenhat, You'd make a good modern business manager.

Here is the problem, you can't put your entire workforce into white collar management positions who then manage the jobs and product being produced overseas which in turn is then imported back home to sell to themselves
I don't see it as moving "up" so much as doing something different. Reaper's example of 5 generations in a textile mill is a good one. Yes, it is a shame that a family tradition cannot be carried on. But nothing lasts forever. Like the man said, "No future is inevitable." What did the generation before do? How many of you do what your fathers or grandfathers did? I certainly do not. The trick is knowing when to move on.

If you insist on a trade simply because your father did it, yet there are no customers for your product - you will likely not be successful. The world changes faster now than it did before. Because of connectivity. Where a family might have had a business 5 generations before and then be forced to change, it might only last one or two now.

I was 35 before I owned my first computer and I spent 20 years learning what little Spanish I know. The Kid is 10 and is completely bi-lingual and more computer savy than I am. Will he be a cowboy, rice farmer? Know how to weld and fix a tractor and castrate a hog and brand a calf? Probably not. Will he be a soldier? Could be - conflict is a constant. He will not have the skills I had, but I will make sure he has skills.

Modernization, industrialization, computerization, etc. - all of them changed the way we live and work. We have adapted in the past and my bet is we will continue to do so.

Huey - of course.

[Bill Harsey]

What happens to a country when they no longer provide their own natural resources or do their own manufacturing?

[Martin]

Watch what happens to the Chinese with this outrageous growth.
I've had that thought too, but what I keep thinking is that even if they don't work at top efficiency and quality, which will improve with the success they have and is acquiring, giving them both experience and a raw strength because of their size and others' dependance on them. Imagine a big Japan with much more export - something Japan lacks in.

That text I sent you is pretty interesting in this context, btw.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Imagine a big Japan with much more export - something Japan lacks in.
????? Do you not remember the 1970s?

[NousDefionsDoc]

What happens to a country when they no longer provide their own natural resources or do their own manufacturing?
They become English or Phrench?

[brownapple]

Greenhat, You'd make a good modern business manager.

Here is the problem, you can't put your entire workforce into white collar management positions who then manage the jobs and product being produced overseas which in turn is then imported back home to sell to themselves

I am a modern business manager. And my business is helping other businesses adapt to change and the realities of the business world.

As for not being able to put your entire workforce into white collar management positions...

Nike did just that. So did Adidas. So did Toyota (and some of that overseas production is in the US). So have most of the Pharmaceutical Companies. So has ExxonMobil, Unocal... (I'm including designers, engineers, geologists and a lot of other highly talented and educated people in the white collar description although they usually do not supervise others).

You get the idea....

[Martin]

????? Do you not remember the 1970s?
No, and I am admitedly lacking in detailed knowledge on that part and will therefore not comment on it without further research.

The general logic I used, open for critique - not claimed as absolute truth, was that even if a depression or recession hits China, it can reform and become stronger from what it has learned. It would hit a country that has tasted success and that has acquired experience, an industry base, educated segments of the population, and organizational and economic knowledge. Add a growing dependance, although not complete, on China.

If they will have to fight, economically and politically, to reacquire that position they seem to have the resources to do it and the knowledge to avoid previous pitfalls. Hence they might be able to rise above where they were before.

If I'm completely lost in the forest, tell me and I'll be quiete.

[The Reaper]

GH:

That is a laudable, but idealistic solution.

Since we can't find a white collar job for everyone, and the "Soylent Green" solution is not yet acceptable, what do we do with the underclass which becomes unemployable due to changes?

Do we rack and stack them in public housing and put them on the dole?

What white collar job do you propose for those with criminal records, substance abuse problems, subnormal intelligence, or lack of education?

Public assistance in the interim, retraining, educating, and placing newly unemployed (and recycling failures) could potentially be very expensive. Who pays?

On the flip side, what happens when your only source of rare earth magnets, for example, is in China and they decide to cut you off for a period of time due to economic, political, diplomatic, or military reasons?

The military already subsidizes key industries to guarantee production and to foster competetion. What happens when the only foundry capable of producing tank hulls goes under or is unable to find key craftsmen?

These are valid questions that need to be answered BEFORE we continue shipping jobs and entire industries overseas.

NDD, I agree with you that change is inevitable. My concern is that the pace is not being managed, and it should be. It looks more like a stampede than orderly change to me.

I have grave concerns for the future of my children and my country.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

No, and I am admitedly lacking in detailed knowledge on that part and will therefore not comment on it without further research.

The general logic I used, open for critique - not claimed as absolute truth, was that even if a depression or recession hits China, it can reform and become stronger from what it has learned. It would hit a country that has tasted success and that has acquired experience, an industry base, educated segments of the population, and organizational and economic knowledge. Add a growing dependance, although not complete, on China.

If they will have to fight, economically and politically, to reacquire that position they seem to have the resources to do it and the knowledge to avoid previous pitfalls. Hence they might be able to rise above where they were before.

If I'm completely lost in the forest, tell me and I'll be quiete.
No need to be quiete. There was a time when China was considered by many to be the sun source of everything. Religion, products, raw materials were all thought to be better and were imported, especially to Japan. There was a time when you couldn't hardly turn something over in the US without seeing "Made in Japan" on it. Countries and power wax and wane. History is cyclic as well as linear. ;)

[NousDefionsDoc]

NDD, I agree with you that change is inevitable. My concern is that the pace is not being managed, and it should be. It looks more like a stampede than orderly change to me.
Absolutely agreed. No rule sets to guide us. That is Barnett's whole premise - Globalization is not bad, we are poorly managing it.

[The Reaper]

http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA3008/

TR

[jatx]

Increased trade and mutual investment with other nations are win-win propositions. The problem, however, is a classic one of political economy - while the benefits of engagement are spread amongst a broad, diffuse group lacking a single voice or organizing principle, the pain is felt by a small, concentrated and organized minority. The textile example cited earlier is a perfect demonstration of this.

Textile producers and their workers' unions have successfully lobbied for trade protection in the form of the MFA, etc., for many years. This has slowed the pace of change within that industry, but has cost US consumers billions more in the form of elevated prices for final goods than has been transferred to the textile industry in the form of protection.

When workers are legitimately displaced by trade, policy makers have it within their power to ease that transition while still allowing the broader society to benefit from the gains of trade. Trade makes the whole "pie" bigger. That is an indisputable fact of economics. If the US withdrew all trade protections currently benefiting our textile workers, the resulting gains accruing to consumers in general would be large enough to guarantee those workers their current level of income through retirement if our elected officials chose to do so. That would obviously be an extreme outcome, but it illustrates my point. If there is long-term damage to workers within an industry coincident with increased trade, that is a failure of domestic policy and political will, not of the trading system in general.

Free trade is like a ratchet. Because of the way that the WTO system is set up, countries which choose to trade more freely with their partners cannot reverse that process without incurring enormous penalties. The ratchet moves only forward, never backward. I have to believe that, in the final analysis, Americans' security and wallets will both benefit from this. Our sources of "soft power" as a nation are profoundly important, and they are transmitted through frequency of interaction. These include culture, media, political mores, etc.. Close trading partners rarely go to war with each other and, just as factor-price equalization ensures that the prices paid for goods and services in different countries will gravitate toward one another as trade deepens, so too will we see a gradual convergence of basic political ideas and social contracts.

BTW - I was trained as a trade and development economist, used to work at the WTO, and have represented many industries involved in trade disputes before the International Trade Commission. If you have arcane questions, fire away, but I won't otherwise sidetrack the discussion. :D

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA3008/

TR
Nice shoot house (23 stories!!! Hello stairwells!!!), driving track close by, train tracks (I'll stea...find an Amtrack car or two for train take downs), looks like plenty of scrap for bullet traps and PT, plenty of room for Longrange. Good weather. We can set the Blademaster up just off the range fan.

Place was going to waste making steel anyway. :lifter

[Bravo1-3]

GH:

That is a laudable, but idealistic solution.

Since we can't find a white collar job for everyone, and the "Soylent Green" solution is not yet acceptable, what do we do with the underclass which becomes unemployable due to changes?

Do we rack and stack them in public housing and put them on the dole?

What white collar job do you propose for those with criminal records, substance abuse problems, subnormal intelligence, or lack of education?


Thats easy, they get to wander around the country like beduoins looking for temporary jobs, leaving no legacy for their children, having no dignity in their lives, and serving as a warning to others that all there is to life is a work week.

Actually, they'd probably be better off leaving the country... it's going to be too expensive to live here anyway.

[Roguish Lawyer]

You people need to learn to exploit the invisible hand before it smacks you in the ass. There is a huge difference between labor-driven protectionism, on the one hand, and protecting truly strategic resources and industries, on the other. The latter makes sense, but the rest is just whining as far as I'm concerned. Kill or be killed.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Back on topic:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/20050318_247.html

Intelligence Chiefs Outline Threats, Challenges
By Terri Lukach
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 18, 2005 – The nation’s top civilian and military intelligence chiefs outlined the primary threats to U.S. national security in the post 9/11 world, as well as the major obstacles to overcoming them, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee here March 17. In a joint appearance before the committee, Director of Central Intelligence Porter Goss and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Navy Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby agreed that terrorist extremists remain the greatest threat to the United States and its allies.

Goss said the war on terror “has presented the intelligence community with challenges unlike any before.” Rather than standing armies, he said, U.S. forces face small groups of terrorists and extremists who operate out of homes and caves, rather than military bases, and who don’t necessarily wear uniforms, use conventional weapons, or observe the norms and standards of civilized society.

While emphasizing that “the United States government does not engage in or condone torture,” Goss underscored the importance of professional interrogation of terrorists to save innocent lives, disrupt terrorist schemes, and protect combat forces. “The United States has had documented success protecting people and capturing terrorists with such information,” he said, and will continue to take terrorists and extremists off the battlefield. “I’d much rather explain why we did something than why we did nothing,” Goss said.

Goss also noted that the volume and scope of information the intelligence community collects, process and provides to policymakers and warfighters has grown tremendously.

While great progress has been made in improving the flow of information among analysts across the government, Goss said, many challenges remain. He cited the need to better discern between real threats and “wishful thinking,” the need to establish a threshold for allocating resources to track down leads, and the damage caused by unauthorized disclosure of classified information by the media and others.

Goss said he welcomed President Bush’s directive to increase CIA human intelligence and analytical capabilities by half and proposed the establishment of a national university of intelligence to “help define a new intelligence community culture” and encourage better cooperation across the various government agencies.

In addition to defeating terrorism, Goss said, other priorities for protecting U.S. national security include defending the homeland, stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the proliferation of drugs, and fostering stability, freedom and peace in troubled regions of the world.

Jacoby agreed with his CIA counterpart that transnational terrorism remains the primary threat to the U.S. and its interests, and said it’s not necessarily terrorism directed primarily by al Qaeda.

The terrorist threat, he said, has changed over the last 12 months away from a movement centrally directed by al Qaeda leadership to like-minded Sunni Islamic groups who share resources and goals. All of the groups, he added, “remain interested in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, and have a stated intention to conduct an attack exceeding the destruction of 9/11.”

Jacoby said WMD and missile proliferation is the second most immediate and significant threat to the United States and international stability. He cited both Iran and North Korea’s continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons as well as China’s military modernization program, which includes ballistic missiles.

In Iraq, Jacoby praised the increasing capability of Iraqi security forces, noting that since the Jan. 30 elections, daily attacks by insurgents continue to drop and “are now considerably below the high level of activity that existed last November.”

“Also,” he said, “the attacks are basically confined to four provinces in the Sunni heartland and the vicinity around Baghdad,” although he added it is too early to say whether this is a trend.

Jacoby stressed that military intelligence disciplines must remain robust and that more collection and analysis is needed to provide adequate warning of attack and a more complete understanding of the military capabilities, doctrine, war plans and intentions of other countries.

[NousDefionsDoc]

In addition to defeating terrorism, Goss said, other priorities for protecting U.S. national security include defending the homeland, stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the proliferation of drugs, and fostering stability, freedom and peace in troubled regions of the world.

"Freedom and peace"? I need to go 'splain them something.

Anyway, this is what I don't like. This tells me nothing. These are abstract ideas, not objectives.

[NousDefionsDoc]

and a more complete understanding of the military capabilities, doctrine, war plans and intentions of other countries.

Worried about nation-states. Speaking the old language. Following the old rules. What other countries?

[jatx]

learn to exploit the invisible hand

Ooh, now that would be an appropriate screen name for an economist! Can I change mine, can I, can I? :D

[Roguish Lawyer]

Ooh, now that would be an appropriate screen name for an economist! Can I change mine, can I, can I? :D

Probably. PM an admin.

[Bill Harsey]

Ooh, now that would be an appropriate screen name for an economist! Can I change mine, can I, can I? :D

Let me have some beer, I can help with this one.

[jatx]

Let me have some beer, I can help with this one.

What kind and how much, Blade Master?

[Huey14]

My feeling regarding free trade, is that while it benefits importers it would seem to kill the export industry, unless both countries are about equal.

If one huge country and flood a smaller country, I wouldn't call this a good thing.

Of course, there's the possibility I have the wrong end of the stick. I'm quite used to that end.

[brownapple]

My concern is that the pace is not being managed, and it should be. It looks more like a stampede than orderly change to me.

It's called free trade for a reason. People are welcome to cope with change as they see fit. Some companies provide assistance to those who want it, some do not. Their choice.

I am not in favor of the pace being managed because that means the government, and by and large, the government is not good at managing the like and managing to keep competitive.

Harsh? So is life.

[The Reaper]

It's called free trade for a reason. People are welcome to cope with change as they see fit. Some companies provide assistance to those who want it, some do not. Their choice.

I am not in favor of the pace being managed because that means the government, and by and large, the government is not good at managing the like and managing to keep competitive.

Harsh? So is life.

What was the obligation of the U.S. to help people in other countries hit by the recent tsunami with U.S. taxpayer dollars and man-hours?

TR

[dennisw]

It seems in our discussion that we are cross threading some business principals. For instance, we dicuss "the invisible hand" and capitalism etc. But are these terms related to business inside a nation and to globization also? How does the invisible hand relate to the item below:


"In that regard, the February 2003 issue of Business Week informs us that Microsoft's "Bill Gates was in Beijing recently meeting with President Jiang Zemin and other government officials and promising to give the Chinese access to one of the most zealously guarded industrial secrets in Corporate America: the Windows source code. That's a big step for Microsoft in any country. In China, where piracy is rampant, it's a huge leap.” (BW Online, 2/10/03)

Microsoft is spending $750 million on Research and Development in China, and $400 million in India in the next three years. At Microsoft's Beijing research lab, one-third of the 180 programmers have Ph.D.s from U.S. universities."

Should we say, "it looks like Microsoft is going to begin selling software to a billion chinease. Ok, all you blue collar workers, quit working and invest your large nest eggs in Microsoft stock and wait for the dividends to roll in. Is that realistic?

Wait a second, before you do we need to consider: In china, 94% of software is not purchased but pirated. Those are dollars that will never come back and will never improve any bottom lines or create any dividends. We just subsidized a population. How can we make a dent in the trade deficit when these countries do not recognize technological patents, etc.

The invisible hand deals somewhat with resources and labor readjusting to changes in economic conditions. An example in my mind was when folks left detroit to move to houston when the auto industry hit a glitch and the oil industry was strong. How does labor make adjustments in globilization where there are impediments to movement, both cultural and legal?

How does the invisible hand deal with multi national corporations that serve no master, but only a bottom line? And where is that bottom line located?

Nike did just that. So did Adidas. So did Toyota (and some of that overseas production is in the US). So have most of the Pharmaceutical Companies. So has ExxonMobil, Unocal... (I'm including designers, engineers, geologists and a lot of other highly talented and educated people in the white collar description although they usually do not supervise others).

I think the above is a bit simplistic. Were there any layoffs involved? If what you say is accurate, those companies domestically employ the same number folks now as they did ten years ago? I'm not sure about that. I don't think shifting blue collar jobs to white collar jobs is going employ a nation. Sounds more like "I got mine, if you didn't get yours, your screwed."

If these concepts truly do relate to international capitalism, what about their impact on our national security? Shifting manufacturing to third world countries like china and india, may make sense from a bottom line perspective for Dell or Microsoft, because it increases their current profits. But is that the threshold criteria? What about Uncle Sam?

For example, lets say that little bit of technology we just gave to the Microsoft divison in China will allow then to tract unit sales but oopps... it will also allow their Intelligence agencies to track our troop movements. Is that a security issue? You bet your ass. Where do Microsoft, Dell etc. loyalties reside? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust todays Corporate leadership to safeguard security technology(I'm still pissed that Toshiba sold our stealth propeller technology to the Russians).

If the balloon goes up do you think American soldiers will put their lives on the line to protect Microsoft? What happens to the 2000 Wal Marts they expect to build in China? When Washington kicked Cornwallis's ass, a lot of British exporters took a haircut on that deal.

The link below presents some interesting discussion on these issues.

www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/Mark_Wordfroms/China1/China1-29.shtml

One last item and I will shut up. A friend of mine is fairly high up in fortune 500 company and they just had some hackers spend a long weekend in their computers. The hackers derived from China. I wonder where they got the skill to do that? Let's assume my friends company has a data base with all our financial information in it. Scary stuff. Like the Rigteous Bros. say " I've lost that warm and fuzzy feeling" Alright, I took literary license.

[Martin]

Blue collar jobs are also threatened by increasingly capable and cheaper robotic technology.

[lrd]

What happens to a country when they no longer provide their own natural resources or do their own manufacturing?

I caught part of an interview the other night with the president of caterpillar. He was discussing their new holistic approach (his term) to emerging markets in China, India, and Russia. They are building product support centers, establishing financing departments, etc. He was commenting on the abundance of raw materials in these countries and the lack of a modern infrastructure to harvest them. Cataerpillar had a record sales year in China.

I'm not an economist. It makes me wonder what return we get on this. And I don't just mean financial return.

[NousDefionsDoc]

PolicyWatch #949
Hizballah and the Anitglobalization Movement: A New Coalition?
By Ely Karmon
January 27, 2005

The World Social Forum (WSF) is currently (January 26–31) convening a Global Anti-War Assembly in Porto Alegre, Brazil, building on its previous conferences attended by thousands of antiglobalization activists from around the globe. Among the issues to be addressed are coordinating actions across borders, determining which tactics to use, finding ways of penalizing countries that act as U.S. allies in conflicts like the Iraq war, and building stronger links between the antiglobalization movement and movements in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The Beirut Assembly, the most recent of these gatherings, committed to struggling against what it termed “the occupation of Iraq, Palestine, corporate-led globalization, and dictatorships.” It also provided some interesting indications that certain elements in the antiglobalization movement are prepared to work with Hizballah.

The September Beirut Assembly

On September 17-19, 2004, activists held an “International Strategy Meeting” in Beirut under the title “Where Next for the Global Anti-War and Anti-Globalization Movements?” The Beirut conference emerged from a process that began at a May 2003 antiwar conference in Jakarta and continued at an antiwar assembly at the Mumbai World Social Forum in January 2004. The main conveners included Focus on the Global South (Thailand), a “key player in the global movement,” and the Civilian Campaign for Protection of Palestinian People (France). The rest of the working group that organized the conference hailed from Argentina, South Africa, Japan, France, Nicaragua, India, the Philippines, Italy, Brazil, Greece, the United Kingdom, and the United States, reflecting the broadly international and south-weighted character of the initiative. The meeting was endorsed by 262 organizations and movements from 53 countries. Moreover, some 300 individuals from 50 countries participated in the conference, representing various antiwar coalitions, social movements, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other groups. Participation from Africa and North America was generally weak, however.

The Arab sponsors (the Lebanese Welcoming Committee) included “progressives, seculars, and Islamists” such as Hizballah, the Lebanese Communist Party, and the Progressive Socialist Party of Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. Joining them were activists from Syria, Egypt, and Morocco, and Palestinian areas as well as a delegation of Iraqis. The decision to hold the meeting in the Middle East was part of a conscious effort to build closer links with antiwar and anti–corporate globalization activists in the region.

Hizballah’s Role in the Conference

Hizballah was described at the conference as “one of the leading welcoming organizations [and] an example of successful, targeted, and organized resistance.” Ali Fayad, member of Hizballah’s Central Council and chairman of the Academic Center for Documentation, stressed that Islam’s message is one of unity and collaboration, not division, and that the conference was held in Beirut because Lebanon’s resistance “defeated the Reagan project for the Middle East in the 1980s . . . [and] liberated the land from occupation.”

Hizballah is not known for its antiwar or antiglobalization stance and had never before participated in such a conference. It was invited because a group of radical Italian leftists insisted on it. Entreaties of this sort were not without precedent: in March 2003, Nadia Desdemona Lioce, a leading member of the new Italian Red Brigades (Brigate Rosse), invited the “Arab and Islamic masses, . . . natural allies of the metropolitan proletarian,” to “take up arms at the heart of a unique and international axis at the side of the anti-imperialist Front Combattant in the face of a new offensive by bourgeois governments.” She saw in the “Zionist-American aggression against Iraq . . . an imperialist will to cut down the principal obstacle to the Zionist hegemony” and “to annihilate the Palestinian resistance.”

Lebanese NGOs and grassroots organizers in Beirut raised concerns about the potential negative impact of the conference on their work for local social justice. In particular, many Lebanese antiglobalization organizations were irritated about the decision to invite Hizballah, which they deemed a military organization that represented neither the antiwar nor the antiglobalization movement in Lebanon. Indeed, Hizballah’s politics and ideology harm Palestinian workers’ rights in Lebanon, suppress women, persecute homosexuals, and impede democratic freedoms.

Results of the Beirut Conference

In pursuing its goal of developing new links with antiwar and antiglobalization forces in the Middle East, the conference hosted some interesting debates about suicide bombing and the relative importance of local versus Middle Eastern struggles.

Suicide bombing. Intellectual and activist Walden Bello, executive director of Focus on the Global South and one of the leading critics of the current model of economic globalization, remarked in his keynote speech that the high proportion of Islamic (rather than secular) elements in the Iraqi resistance continues to bother many peace activists. According to him, these are the same activists who are “repelled” whenever Palestinian leaders have “proudly asserted that suicide bombers were the oppressed people’s equivalent of the F-16.” In offering these characterizations, Bello practically supported the use of suicide as a political weapon, arguing for broad support for resistance in Iraq and Palestinian areas without interference in the outcome of national liberation struggles. He asked the audience to keep in mind that, historically, “many progressives were also repelled by some of the methods of the ‘Mau Mau’ movement in Kenya, the FLN in Algeria, or the NLF in Vietnam.”

His position was reinforced by other delegates who argued that it was up to the people of Iraq to choose, according to the limited means available to them in their tremendously difficult situation, how they should fight the occupation of their country. As they put it, the role of solidarity is to lend support, not offer critiques. The debate involved an exchange on who could be considered legitimate targets in the struggle against occupation. It was remarked that, as a result of privatization, military functions are now often in the hands of apparent civilians within the fields of combat, security, intelligence, supply, and public relations. According to this view, even clearly civilian roles, such as construction work for civilian purposes, often reinforce the occupation or further the aims of the invasion by other means.

Local struggles, global movement. Those involved in frontline struggles for the basic rights of refugees, women, migrant workers, detainees, and homosexuals in the Middle East expressed their frustration at having been told, for years, that their efforts must take second place to the movement against U.S. imperialism and Israel. Yet, delegates from other parts of the world called for an approach of “localising the struggle, globalising the intifada.” The baseline assumption of the conference was the need to give global priority to the struggles in Iraq and by the Palestinians in international solidarity work. Many delegates agreed that the resistance in Iraq and the Palestinian areas are, as one delegate put it, “fighting for the rest of us on the frontline of the global war; thus they should be garnering our priority support as a matter of strategy.” Other delegates (from Africa in particular) raised questions about this Middle East focus, however.

The final declaration of the conference stressed the need to “support the right of the people of Iraq and the Palestinian terrirtories to resist the occupations,” called for the unconditional withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, and demanded an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, “the dismantlement of the Apartheid Wall and all settlements,” and the release of all Palestinian and Iraqi political prisoners. It even saluted “the Lebanese resistance (Hizbullah) that inspires us the world over.” The statement also promised to build solidarity through common campaigns and a “positive dynamic of dialogue.”

Conclusion

It seems that Hizballah has decided to jump on the antiglobalization bandwagon at a sensitive moment in the war on terror and the situation in Iraq—both fragile, explosive situations that could decide the course of future events in the Middle East. At least some important elements of the antiglobalization movement now seem willing to seek solidarity and cooperation with radical Islamist organizations and to accept their use of suicide terrorism.

Ely Karmon is a senior research scholar with the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism.

[brownapple]

What was the obligation of the U.S. to help people in other countries hit by the recent tsunami with U.S. taxpayer dollars and man-hours?

TR

Obligation? None. It was a choice.

[brownapple]

I think the above is a bit simplistic. Were there any layoffs involved? If what you say is accurate, those companies domestically employ the same number folks now as they did ten years ago? I'm not sure about that. I don't think shifting blue collar jobs to white collar jobs is going employ a nation. Sounds more like "I got mine, if you didn't get yours, your screwed."

If these concepts truly do relate to international capitalism, what about their impact on our national security? Shifting manufacturing to third world countries like china and india, may make sense from a bottom line perspective for Dell or Microsoft, because it increases their current profits. But is that the threshold criteria? What about Uncle Sam?

...

One last item and I will shut up. A friend of mine is fairly high up in fortune 500 company and they just had some hackers spend a long weekend in their computers. The hackers derived from China. I wonder where they got the skill to do that? Let's assume my friends company has a data base with all our financial information in it. Scary stuff. Like the Rigteous Bros. say " I've lost that warm and fuzzy feeling" Alright, I took literary license.

There isn't any choice. Businesses either make the decisions and moves to stay competitive or they go out of business. Then you don't have to worry about the US having the capability at all. Someone else will though, because they will be competitive. Are you under the impression that Microsoft, Dell, IBM, etc. should be charities (although in Microsoft's case, I could make a pretty good argument that 5 years of being a charity would be good for them. Their profit % is obscene)?

Oh, and as to where those hackers learned that skill?

Might remember that China invented the first computers. And that the Chinese historically are a smart and industrious people. We didn't need to teach them anything. They were going to learn anyway.

There are no secrets when it comes to technology. Not in the long-term. Once people know it can be done, they can and will figure out how to do it.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Getting lonely GH?
Globalization is a condition defined by mutually assured dependence. To globalize your economy and your society, you must accept that the world will reshape your future far more than you can possibly hope to influence the world in return. The continuity of the past, where son followed father in occupation for generations, will in most cases end with callaous disregard for tradition. Moreover, if you globalize you will import from that world outside far more than you can possibly offer in return. While your culture will be added to globalization's ever-evolving mosaic, your society will - in return - be challenged to adapt to an amazing array of content flows (e.g., ideas about the role of women, free speech, "proper" education) that come with globalization's connectivity. The same will hold true for the goods and services you can offer the world, which will pale in comparison with all the products that will flood your markets, challenging your producers and firms to adapt to a new competitive landscape or die. (Barnett)

The down side.

The upside is we've already done most of it. We are the prime example of globalization. We've had our civil war, our civil rights conflicts, our women's rights problems - and we've come through it all.

We need to export it now or we will be putting out these fires for the rest of time. That is what we are really talking about when we say, "Spreading democracy". It is as social and economic as political. In fact, I would say the political is the least important of the three.

Mexico is a democracy - and they are sucking the life blood out of the US one dollar at a time.

We've been at war for four years because the politicians ignored AQ as a nusiance when he was manageable.

We have to engage. We have to drag them out of the dark. And we have to accept some compromise.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Worried about the Elephant that is China and the mice that are Africa, the ME, parts of SA and Asia will gnaw us to death.

[lrd]

Worried about the Elephant that is China and the mice that are Africa, the ME, parts of SA and Asia will gnaw us to death.I'm worried about the elephant making deals with the mice.

[boat guy]

LRD... and rightly so...Recent deals with Venezuela are a prime example.
Another problem with China that has been largley overlooked is the balance between Communism and Capitalism. Currently, their labor force works in austere conditions at best and is grossly underpaid. It is this very force which has enabled their astonishing growth and encouraged the export of American jobs. Communism and capitalism combined is the reason for China's success. In the event that one or the other prevails, they will cease to be able to maintain a stranglehold on the world economy.
Another product of Globalization is the exportation of human rights. The multiple trade agreements and a burgeoning economy will soon enough be tempered by the global opposition to human rights violations. That is the beauty of globalization.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I'm worried about the elephant making deals with the mice.
Why?

[lrd]

Why?
I'm running out the door, but I'll answer this when I get back.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Remember upon the conduct of each depends the fate of all.
Alexander The Great

[NousDefionsDoc]

A Threat to Latin Democracy

Monday, March 21, 2005; Page A18

ANOTHER LATIN American democracy is on the verge of crumbling under pressure from leftist populism. The trouble comes this time in Bolivia, where a democratic president and Congress face a paralyzing mix of strikes and road blockades by a radical movement opposed to foreign investment and free-market capitalism. The insurgents, who claim to represent the country's indigenous population, drove one democratically elected president from office 18 months ago; now they are working on his successor, Carlos Mesa, who has searched valiantly but unsuccessfully for compromise. The populists ride a leftist wave of momentum in Latin America and have the rhetorical, and possibly material, support of the region's self-styled "Bolivarian" revolutionary, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The democrats could use some outside help, from their neighbors and the United States.

Accounts of political crises in Andean countries such as Bolivia sometimes portray a poor and disenfranchised indigenous majority pitted against an ethnically European and mestizo elite. The facts tell a different story in Bolivia. Mr. Mesa, polls show, has the support of two-thirds of his compatriots, while the party leading the protests, the Movement Toward Socialism, has never received more than 21 percent of the vote in an election. Nor is it the case that Bolivia's experiment with free-market policies in the 1990s failed to help the poor. Per capita incomes rose by 20 percent in the second half of the decade. Thanks to private foreign investment, significantly more Bolivians gained access to water, sewage systems and electricity.

The populist minority, led by former coca farmer Evo Morales, is bent on using force to reverse that progress. Already it has effectively blocked natural gas exports to the United States. Its current strikes are aimed at stopping further foreign investment in that industry through confiscatory taxes and reversing the privatization of other industries. Mr. Mesa, swearing off the use of force to break up the road blockades, has countered with democratic political tactics: first a national referendum on a compromise gas policy, then an accord with Congress on political and economic reforms. Last week, in desperation, he proposed that his own term as president be cut short and new elections be held in August; Congress rejected the proposal, and Mr. Mesa later announced he would stay on. But the opposition still threatens to renew a blockade that is devastating one of the hemisphere's poorest economies and prompting talk of secession in Bolivia's relatively prosperous and pro-capitalist eastern provinces.

All of this is good news for Mr. Chavez, who along with Cuba's Fidel Castro dreams of a new bloc of Latin "socialist" (i.e., undemocratic) regimes that will join with like-minded states such as Iran, Libya and China to oppose the United States. Bolivia's neighbors, including Brazil, Argentina and Chile, ought to be alarmed by this trend; but though their own leftist governments have expressed support for Mr. Mesa they have refrained from more concerted action -- such as demanding that Mr. Chavez cease his meddling. The State Department issued a statement last week expressing "support for the people of Bolivia and a peaceful democratic process." If there is a deeper U.S. policy to head off the breakdown of democracy in Latin America, there isn't much sign of it.

Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52528-2005Mar20.html)

[NousDefionsDoc]

Two U.N. Peacekeepers Killed in Haiti
Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:09 PM ET

By Joseph Guyler Delva

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (Reuters) - Two U.N. peacekeepers were shot and killed in Haiti on Sunday in gunfights with rebel former soldiers who control parts of the Caribbean nation and led a revolt that ousted its president last year.

The soldiers, one from Sri Lanka and one from Nepal, were the first U.N. troops killed by violence since the international forces were sent in June to help stabilize Haiti after President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was driven into exile in February 2004.

The soldier from Nepal was killed in an attack by former soldiers occupying the Terre-Rouge area of Haiti's Central Plateau, Cardona said.

The Sri Lankan soldier was killed as U.N. troops and Haitian police evicted Haitian rebels from a police station they occupied for months and used as a base in the southern town of Petit-Goave, said the police director for the region, Renan Etienne.

"During the exchange of fire, one U.N. soldier from Sri Lanka and two among the police station occupiers were killed," Etienne told Reuters.

Eleven people wounded in the gunfight were taken to a hospital, including three Sri Lankan soldiers.

A spokesman for the U.N. civilian police, Jean-Francois Vezina, said police and U.N. troops had retaken control of the police station. U.N. troops detained 25 former soldiers and seized 13 weapons, he said.

Members of Haiti's defunct army, who helped lead the rebellion against Aristide, control several parts of the country.

Aristide disbanded Haiti's coup-prone army in 1995 during his first term as president. He was re-elected in 2001 for a five-year term but fled the country on Feb. 29, 2004, in the face of a month-long armed revolt and under U.S. and French pressure to quit. He is exiled in South-Africa.

Former soldiers demanded the reinstatement of the military and have clashed with Haiti's interim government over its refusal. Interim Prime Minister Gerard Latortue said the decision on whether to reestablish the army should be made by the new government chosen in elections scheduled for November.

The U.N. special envoy to Haiti, Juan Gabriel Valdes, is the civilian chief of the 7,400-strong U.N. peacekeeping force made up of soldiers and civilian police from dozens of nations.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Gap states - both of them.

[Roguish Lawyer]

The Bolivia article makes an important point, doesn't it? Glad you posted it.

[NousDefionsDoc]

The Bolivia article makes an important point, doesn't it? Glad you posted it.
What point?

[Roguish Lawyer]

What point?


This one:

Accounts of political crises in Andean countries such as Bolivia sometimes portray a poor and disenfranchised indigenous majority pitted against an ethnically European and mestizo elite. The facts tell a different story in Bolivia. Mr. Mesa, polls show, has the support of two-thirds of his compatriots, while the party leading the protests, the Movement Toward Socialism, has never received more than 21 percent of the vote in an election. Nor is it the case that Bolivia's experiment with free-market policies in the 1990s failed to help the poor. Per capita incomes rose by 20 percent in the second half of the decade. Thanks to private foreign investment, significantly more Bolivians gained access to water, sewage systems and electricity.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yes, but what's the point?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Yes, but what's the point?

Shows how globalization can be good for our security. Bolivia may not be the best example, but I submit that economic development in Mexico, for example, advances our national security interests.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Check this out:

Of the 118 countries listed by the World Bank as "low-income" or "low-middle-income" (below $2,936 per capita annual), 109 are located inside the Gap.

2/3 of Gap states have poverty levels above 10%, 1/3 above 30%. In several African states, the poverty level is 60-70%

According to Freedom House's 2003 survey of states surveyed around the world, 48 countries of a global total of 192 surveyed were rated as "not free". Of those 48 states, 45 are in the Gap. The three remaining are NK, China and Belarus.

Of the 50 states with the lowest life expectancy rates (37-57 years), all but one South Africa, is in the Gap.

All of the countries with a median age of less than 20 are in the Gap.

80-90% of "current conflicts" are in Gap states.

According to the US Refugee Committee's 2002 survey, GAP states account for 96% of refugees leaving their country and 93% of refugees displaced within their own country.

Of the sixteen current (2004) UN peacekeeping missions, all are inside the Gap.

19 of 23 states identified by US State Department as major drug producers are Gap states.

20 of 21 states classified as "reluctantly connected" to the internet are Gap states.

Source - Barnett.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I just looked - AL hasn't posted once on this thread. I find that...disturbing. :munchin

[dennisw]

I think we're painting a picutre of globilization with too broad of a paint brush. In Boliva it appears private investment has raised the standard of living, but is it in a nation where there is a democratic or fear based type of government? It looks like Bolivia is barely holding on by a thread to its democratic type of government.

What happens if they are taken over by force by the communist leftist element? What happens to all the private investment?

It appears Globilization can be a good thing, but it only makes sense within certain paramenters. Does the country receiving the benefit of globilization have a democratic or fear based government, e.g. China, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.

Without isolating nations with a strong committment to having a non fear based government, it seems globalization only makes our enemies stronger.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Bolivia is a democratic republic with 5 year presidential term limits. The current president assumed after the previous resigned due to pressure. Congress appointed the previous because neither candidate won a majority. Morales was the loser in the congressional vote. And he's not happy about it.

The current trend in LATAM is populist presidents, many of whom were former military officers, that promise the moon. Few go as far as Chavez has. At any rate, when they get into office and don't deliver, the "people" hold a referendum in the street and force them from office, putting in the one that promises them the moon next. it is a vicious cycle and shows the absurdity of a true democracy as a form of government. The "people" are a rabble.

I think a lot of the dissatisfaction is due to a feeling of being left out. Internet and cable tv is prevalant. they know what's going on in the world and they want to play. yet their leaders still can convince them that protectionism is a good thing. They believe the rhetoric about the Yankees wanting to rape their natural resources etc. You wouldn't believe the grafitti and slogans painted all over the place. The damn universities are a breeding ground for the crap. And they are the most connected!

[brownapple]

I think we're painting a picutre of globilization with too broad of a paint brush. In Boliva it appears private investment has raised the standard of living, but is it in a nation where there is a democratic or fear based type of government? It looks like Bolivia is barely holding on by a thread to its democratic type of government.

What happens if they are taken over by force by the communist leftist element? What happens to all the private investment?

It appears Globilization can be a good thing, but it only makes sense within certain paramenters. Does the country receiving the benefit of globilization have a democratic or fear based government, e.g. China, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.

Without isolating nations with a strong committment to having a non fear based government, it seems globalization only makes our enemies stronger.

Fear-based governments cannot survive long-term in a globablized economy. Globalization means being competitive is absolutely necessary. Being competitive requires communication. Communication means exposure to outside ideas and concepts.

China is finding this out now, and is struggling with dealing with the demand for self-determination in both Hong-Kong (which had it) and Shanghai (which wants it). The primary solution at this point is compromise. Not fear.

[dennisw]

Fear-based governments cannot survive long-term in a globablized economy. Globalization means being competitive is absolutely necessary. Being competitive requires communication. Communication means exposure to outside ideas and concepts.

Fear based governments can survive for a fair amount of time if we subsidize them with technology and money. They can survive long enough to cause us a butt load of problems. One of the biggest complaints about detente with the previsous soviet regime was that it prolonged their government.

Are we doing the same with China? Asking them to help us with Korea etc. and what's the impact of sharing of top secret technology. I'm all for capitalism, but I still ask the question about these large american based international corporations: "where do their loyalties reside?"

Also, just because the Russian government imploded, does that mean fear based governments can't last long enough to piss in our rice crispies?

[brownapple]

When engaged in a global economy, they are far less likely to "piss in our rice crispies". The chance of a war with China is darn near nil. Why? Because we need them and they need us, economically. And they know it.

[NousDefionsDoc]

When engaged in a global economy, they are far less likely to "piss in our rice crispies". The chance of a war with China is darn near nil. Why? Because we need them and they need us, economically. And they know it.
Not to mention the fact that it would serve no purpose. Agreed.

[boat guy]

GH,
Do you believe that China will be able to continue to balance Capitalism and Communism. They are walking a very fine line, should one or the other fail, there will be consequences. While many economists amazed at the growth of the private sector in China tout the victory of Capitalism (http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_39/b3648087.htm) , there are many who feel that the balance will not be maintained for long. The link below is to a Communist group arguably with the Marxist Ideology chip on its shoulder. (Cut and paste link to ICC to avoid PS.Com from showing please http://en.internationalism.org/wr/278_china.htm)
There are valid points which can be verfied with a little research. (See Unemployment (http://www.msu.edu/~gilesj/GilesParkZhang-final.pdf) poverty (http://www.edcnews.se/Reviews/Hussain2003.html) inflation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3713351.stm) ) According to Hawsbawn in his The Age of Extremes "Mao was fundamentally convinced of the importance of struggle, conflict and high tension as something that was not only essential to life but prevented the relapse into the weaknesses of the old Chinese society, whose very insistence on unchanging permanence and harmony had been its weakness." This principle is highly evident in China today.
A trip to Human Rights In China (http://www.hrichina.org/public/index) yields a factual glimpse into many problems facing the growth of industry in that nation today. Globalizition is bringing into sharp relief the many problems the Chinese government faces in the wake of their astounding growth.
In my mind it is unlikely that Capitalism and Communism will continue to co exist in China. The unrest that follows may lead to conflict. In the event of strains in China I see LRDs fear of the elephant making deals with the mice to be a real concern.

[NousDefionsDoc]

This whole Gap vs Core thing makes a very compelling case for the Spec Ops Community to my way of thinking.

[NousDefionsDoc]

GH,
Do you believe that China will be able to continue to balance Capitalism and Communism. They are walking a very fine line, should one or the other fail, there will be consequences. While many economists amazed at the growth of the private sector in China tout the victory of Capitalism (http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_39/b3648087.htm) , there are many who feel that the balance will not be maintained for long. The link below is to a Communist group arguably with the Marxist Ideology chip on its shoulder. (Cut and paste link to ICC to avoid PS.Com from showing please http://en.internationalism.org/wr/278_china.htm)
There are valid points which can be verfied with a little research. (See Unemployment (http://www.msu.edu/~gilesj/GilesParkZhang-final.pdf) poverty (http://www.edcnews.se/Reviews/Hussain2003.html) inflation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3713351.stm) ) According to Hawsbawn in his The Age of Extremes "Mao was fundamentally convinced of the importance of struggle, conflict and high tension as something that was not only essential to life but prevented the relapse into the weaknesses of the old Chinese society, whose very insistence on unchanging permanence and harmony had been its weakness." This principle is highly evident in China today.
A trip to Human Rights In China (http://www.hrichina.org/public/index) yields a factual glimpse into many problems facing the growth of industry in that nation today. Globalizition is bringing into sharp relief the many problems the Chinese government faces in the wake of their astounding growth.
In my mind it is unlikely that Capitalism and Communism will continue to co exist in China. The unrest that follows may lead to conflict. In the event of strains in China I see LRDs fear of the elephant making deals with the mice to be a real concern.


Cuba has managed to do it for 50 years, albeit on a much smaller scale.

[dennisw]

When engaged in a global economy, they are far less likely to "piss in our rice crispies". The chance of a war with China is darn near nil. Why? Because we need them and they need us, economically. And they know it.

I would argue that our rice crispies already smell of urine. China's agreements with Venezuela, Iran, Syria. Weapon shipments to Iran, etc. Instead of the Russian velvet glove, this is more like someone offering us cheap goods with one hand, ready to smack us with a closed fist that's hidden behind their back. Both Iran and Venezuela are appearing pretty cocky. I think it has something to do with having acquired fairly substantial and complex weapon systems. They seemed to have adopted an "all in" poker attitude. I cannot buy the world peace through economic interdependence argument.

Regardless, we still haven't addressed the issue of national interest versus profit motive. I'm not bashing capitalism, but where should the loyalty reside? Is maximizing the bottom line a corporation's only concern? I'm not trying to hijack this thread, but it's appears to be related to globilization.

Also, how can a specific business sector compete on a world market if foreign businesses are subsidized (cheaper acquistion of technology and state sponsored exportation of goods)? I know Friedman would say it provides Americans with cheaper goods. But what about the economic unrest during the transition period? Also, why do we need China? Cheaper Barbie dolls? Lastly, do you believe the economic benefit we receive truly has a trickle down effect?

[The Reaper]

Cuba has managed to do it for 50 years, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Is the standard of living higher there than it was 50 years ago?

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

The chances of war with China may be small, but I think “close to nil� is an exaggeration. Taiwan and North Korea are two possible starting points, for example.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Is the standard of living higher there than it was 50 years ago?

TR
Probably about the same as after Che destroyed the economy through his mis-management of the sugar industry.

I'm laughing at everybody on here trying to justify the Chinese as the next "near-peer" opponent. Sound like a bunch of Squid Boat drivers and AF generals trying to convince Congress to fund more GBGBs and the next generation of Jedi X-Wing Bombers.

What exactly do all of you propose we do about it? It's not an arms race. Their "arms" are their population. You want to try to isolate China? What?

[Airbornelawyer]

I just looked - AL hasn't posted once on this thread. I find that...disturbing. :munchinWhy?

[Airbornelawyer]

Check this out:

Of the 118 countries listed by the World Bank as "low-income" or "low-middle-income" (below $2,936 per capita annual), 109 are located inside the Gap.

2/3 of Gap states have poverty levels above 10%, 1/3 above 30%. In several African states, the poverty level is 60-70%

According to Freedom House's 2003 survey of states surveyed around the world, 48 countries of a global total of 192 surveyed were rated as "not free". Of those 48 states, 45 are in the Gap. The three remaining are NK, China and Belarus.

Of the 50 states with the lowest life expectancy rates (37-57 years), all but one South Africa, is in the Gap.

All of the countries with a median age of less than 20 are in the Gap.

80-90% of "current conflicts" are in Gap states.

According to the US Refugee Committee's 2002 survey, GAP states account for 96% of refugees leaving their country and 93% of refugees displaced within their own country.

Of the sixteen current (2004) UN peacekeeping missions, all are inside the Gap.

19 of 23 states identified by US State Department as major drug producers are Gap states.

20 of 21 states classified as "reluctantly connected" to the internet are Gap states.

Source - Barnett.This is a tautology. "Gap" countries are defined as countries displaying these conditions, so the fact that an overwhelming number of countries displaying these conditions are "Gap" countries is, shall we say, unsurprising.

[Roguish Lawyer]

NDD:

Still glad you invited AL in here? LMAO

Regarding war with China, I support trading with and engaging with them, not isolating them, because this will make war less likely. I think it is foolish to dismiss China as a possible military adversary. If they cross the Strait, would you abandon Taiwan? :munchin:

[jatx]

If they cross the Strait, would you abandon Taiwan? :munchin:

A friend of mine at the Pentagon calls this the "Million Man Swim" :D

[Airbornelawyer]

I remember back when the Japanese were buying up car plants and property in the US. Everybody said we'd all be speaking Japanese in a few years. Well, what happened? Their shit fell through the cracks, just like everybody elses does when they grow too fast and they don't change the rules to meet the new situation. They didn't play fair with us either, remember that? They don't seem to be in the news much anymore as far as "taking over the US".

Watch what happens to the Chinese with this outrageous growth.
When I was in law school around 2000 or so, a book came out called "Germany, Inc." (explicitly mimicking a 1980s book on the Japanese model called Japan, Inc.). The author was convinced that we were wrong about Japan, but Germany was the new economic powerhouse we should be worried about. After all, in the wake of Daimler/Chrysler, Bertelsmann buying Random House and Deutsche Bank's takeover of Bankers Trust, among other deals, it looked like the Germans were buying up everybody.

The rhetoric was as heated as any anti-Japanese rhetoric of the 1980s: Bertelsmann's acquisition of Random House was called an Anschluss (annexation) by the left-wing The Nation magazine. For an English speaker, Anschluss connotes the 1938 Anschluss of Austria by Nazi Germany. Vanity Fair described the merger in the context of a "German blitzkrieg" on American publishers. Lest we miss the Nazi connotation, they added: American publishers were being "bought by people who at one point in this century were more famous for burning books than for publishing them."

So where exactly are the panzers of German industry these days?

[NousDefionsDoc]

This is a tautology. "Gap" countries are defined as countries displaying these conditions, so the fact that an overwhelming number of countries displaying these conditions are "Gap" countries is, shall we say, unsurprising.
Negative, you need to read the book. The Gap was not initially defined by these conditions - it was originally a simple map of US deployments for operations other than war.

No, it's not surprising. But do you not think it is more of an impact to actually see stats? Are we going to pay chicken-egg now?

Oh, and I don't think it is a tautology to confim hypothesis with evidence to show reproducible results.

Unless you are referring to a tautology in the mathematical sense of the word?

[NousDefionsDoc]

So where exactly are the panzers of German industry these days?
My guess would be suffering the consequences of re-integration and membership in the EU. But then that is just a guess.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Fight! Fight!

(NDD, you have giant brass ones. :D)

Is the term “gap states� defined in here somewhere? I am following on a very slow Blackberry connection and would appreciate a quick definition if someone would be so kind. :munchin

[NousDefionsDoc]

Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm

[NousDefionsDoc]

NDD:

Still glad you invited AL in here? LMAO

Absolutely. If I can't handle a challenge or two, I'm on the wrong track.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I like the comparison to Japan. Good one.

In case anyone is wondering, these are quotation marks:

“�

:)

[DanUCSB]

You can tell that NDD's been reading too much Barnett. :lifter

But actually, I agree. Thomas Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map and Thomas Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree together make for a good primer on globalization and security concerns. They accurately describe what I would see as the primary security situation today: not great-power warfare, but rather the legacy of failing to understand and keep up with globalization: failed states (Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Liberia) and non-governmental groups who, for various reasons, fear the emergence of freedom, openness, and capitalism (al-Qaeda, most Islamofascist groups, various others). I'm not sure if I agree with Barnett's ultimate optimism in globalization leading us to a world where war is obsolete (people will always fight over some of the same old things), but I think he does a very good job of explaining how the usefulness of the old Big War legacy systems are on the decline (B-1 and B-2 bombers, major surface warships, Comanche) in favor of a more decentralized boots-on-the-ground approach (SF, basic infantry skills, Strykers, UAVs, UH-60s). But as we can see from watching procurement battles, a lot of generals don't want to give up their big-budget items, even if they don't adequately meet the nation's current or near future security needs (F-22s are sleek and sexy; UAVs are ugly and don't give ticket-punchers a clear path to general). Barnett's right when he complains that everyone is looking for the next near-peer competitor (which always ends up being China) while ignoring the real threats to our national security (all of the little bad guys around the globe biting at our ankles).

As for globalization in a larger sense, I'm with Greenhat and some of the others here. Business is a harsh thing, and it's meaningless to complain that the Chinese "don't play fair." Are we to expect them to boost their wages to US union levels out of some sense of international fair play? Of course not; that's absurd. I can understand the plight of people in the United States who are at the wrong end of the globalization stick; however, all of the other options are worse. Everyone in the US seems to love market economics right up until they find out that someone else can do their job just as well and for less.

Capitalism is a hard road, sometimes, and globalization is merely the logical extension of it to the international sphere. American lefties love to sit around and grouse about how bad working conditions are in other nations; what they forget, however, is that all of these people are doing it for a reason: working long hours in a factory for a tiny (to us) wage beats the hell out of starving to death in a mud hut. There's a reason why factories in Malaysia and Indonesia, call centers in India, and maquiladoras in Mexico constantly have crowds of would-be workers out front, hoping for a job. Capitalism, even exploitative and corrupt capitalism (which is a stage every nation inevitably goes through in the transition), has raised standard of living more than any other force in history.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I know I'm guilty of Barnetting. But it is actually an extension of Boyd's arugment against the F-15 and for the F-16, although he eventually lost out on the ultimate goal.

SF guys always knew they were wrong - we saw it on the ground. Seems like we just couldn't explain it (at least I couldn't). And now it makes sense. It explains why all the UAHs weren't armored, the lack of marksmenship skills, etc. We build one army when we need a different one. Of course the consequences of ignoring a near-peer that actually does do something would be catastrophic.

Based on the indicators and recent history - an A Team is more effective than a new fighter - something we knew all along. If I was USASOC, I would be giving this briefing everytime I saw two talking in DC.

It is also an excellent counter-argument to lib accusations.

For the record, I don't agree with everything Barnett has to say either - your example being one of them.

[Sacamuelas]

Absolutely. If I can't handle a challenge or two, I'm on the wrong track.
one or two!!!! .. that's fookin funny. Your ass is about to get a thesis of asswhoopin'.


I agree with RL though... NDD does got big'uns to make the challenge. :D

:munchin

[Airbornelawyer]

My guess would be suffering the consequences of re-integration and membership in the EU. But then that is just a guess.
Right. They followed the same model you noted that Japan did, or at least that commenters on Japan did - inflating the threat of the monolith right when its internal problems reached a tipping point. The biggest problem of reintegration remaining today is chronically high unemployment, but given the experience of its EU neigbors, Germany would be suffering high unemployment even without the Ossis. Among other things, Germany is constrained by excessive bureaucracy and overregulation, EU and domestic, high taxes, a population spoiled by its cradle-to-grave welfare system, and politicians unwilling to address these problems.

My biggest fear for the US is whether we will follow Europe over this cliff.

[Airbornelawyer]

The chances of war with China may be small, but I think "close to nil" is an exaggeration. Taiwan and North Korea are two possible starting points, for example.
Looking at it from a Chinese perspective, there are a dozen or so potential starting points for conflict, though some are remote and others would not implicate the United States.

Numbers correspond to the attached map.

1. Civil unrest/uprising in Tibet. Probably unlikely to evolve into any sort of insurgency, but potentially a problem. There is also some question as to what degree of support China may be giving to Maoist guerrillas across the border in Nepal.

2. Conflict with India. India and China have a common border of about 2,800 miles and fought a border war in 1962. Smaller border clashes have followed, and both countries maintain large military forces in the region. Though a 1996 agreement allows for bilateral talks and confidence-building measures, the substance of the dispute is unresolved. India alternatively pursues close relationships with the US and the USSR/Russia to contain China, while China pursues such relationships with Pakistan to contain India. Both sides have nuclear weapons, though, which tends to moderate their behavior.

3. Civil unrest/uprising in Chinese Turkestan. Though they don't make the news much, China has millions of Turkic Muslims who don't particularly like being under China's thumb. When there was a Soviet Union, both countries had a common interest in suppressing their Turkic populations. But now China borders two independent Turkic countries - Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. While neither is a military threat to China, or is even especially inclined to support Islamists among China's Muslims, they still threaten Chinese control by virtue of (i) their very existence and (ii) the fact that as China prospers economically, even poorer Uighurs can get access to Turkish satellite television broadcasts in Central Asia and see what they are lacking. China has done and will continue to do everything it can to portray any dissent among these Turkic Muslims as part of the grand Islamist conspiracy, in the hopes that we will condone or at least ignore the measures they take to suppress dissent.

4. Mongolia. China still considers Mongolia to merely be Outer Mongolia awaiting return to the Chinese fold, but they aren't in any hurry to reclaim the country. China is worried, however, by two things. First, Mongolia has aggressively cultivated good relations with the United States, even sending troops to Iraq (after a 700-year absence). Second, Mongolian pop culture is seeping into China, undermining Chinese social control in Inner Mongolia (a Mongolian heavy metal band whose heroes are Metallica recently had its music banned in China). Only a slight threat that anything might happen militarily, but it does contribute to China's sense of paranoia.

5. The last Sino-Soviet border conflict was, like the Sino-Indian Border War, some time ago. And China is now Russia's largest customer for military hardware. But some degree of tension remains. Possibility of a war between the two countries is remote, but I have seen some rather outlandish scenarios (not including those in Tom Clancy novels) that factor in such a conflict.

6. North Korea. In the near term, if there were to be any conflict between China and one of its neighbors, war with North Korea actually seems the most likely. Even the old Communists of the Chinese politburo have to be worried about North Korean irrationality, and China already maintains a cordon sanitaire on its side of the border to deal with refugees fleeing North Korea. It is not far-fetched to imagine China pushing that cordon sanitaire closer to and across the border, and the DPRK not reacting too favorably to their Communist brothers.

7. A naval incident, fishing rights dispute or dispute over other issues (missile defense, North Korea, Taiwan, trade) could lead to a conflict in the East China Sea directly with Japan, South Korea or the US. Again, somewhat remote, but maybe NDD is right that the USAF and Navy need some scenario to justify those F-22s and CBGs.

8. Volumes have been written on a war between the PRC and the ROC, and whether and how that would implicate the US.

9. It hasn't been talked about much recently, but before 9-11, there was a fair amount of debate over the possibility of conflict in the South China Sea over the disputed Spratley and Paracel Islands. Everyone in the region - the PRC, the ROC, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam - lays some sort of claim, and the potential oil and natural gas reserves there make it something the parties might consider worth fighting over. The islands and surrounding shipping lanes are also prone to piracy, so trading countries outside of the region, including Japan and the US, also have to be concerned.

10. China's last border war with Vietnam was 1979. It exposed the weaknesses of the PLA's conventional military forces, as Vietnamese gunners picked off Chinese tank unit commanders opening their hatches to use signal flags to command their units. That dismal showing was probably as much an impetus for Deng Xiaoping's modernizations as any worries about the USSR and the US. Like most of the other border war scenarios, a renewed conflict is a remote possibility, but it remains there. In connection with a conflict over the Spratleys, the possibility increases slightly, but is still rather remote.

11. I threw this one in even though I have no idea what the potentiality for a conflict is here. Burma, like North Korea is a rogue state with otherwise good relations with China. I suppose if there is a threat it arises less from conventional sources like a border dispute than from unconventional sources like narco-trafficking. If Chinese economic growth leads to its growing middle class becoming consumers of drugs, China might decide it needs its own counternarcotics strategy. Burma could be China's Colombia.

You can add your own speculative scenarios too. Two I did not put on the map were a direct conflict with the United States not involving a regional conflict, and civil unrest among the Han Chinese themselves, as opposed to minorities like the Uighurs and Tibetans. As to the latter, it's been 15 years since Tiananmen, but the memory remains. The Communist Party has to be paying close attention to various more recent manifestations of people power around the world, too. Even China's economic growth has the seeds of conflict, as it is creating two Chinas - one China where a growing middle class is seeing its economic prosperity not matched by the political freedom it increasingly learns is enjoyed by middle classes in other countries, and another China of tens or even hundreds of millions of people still living in pre-industrial conditions in villages without paved roads or running water.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Right. They followed the same model you noted that Japan did, or at least that commenters on Japan did - inflating the threat of the monolith right when its internal problems reached a tipping point. The biggest problem of reintegration remaining today is chronically high unemployment, but given the experience of its EU neigbors, Germany would be suffering high unemployment even without the Ossis. Among other things, Germany is constrained by excessive bureaucracy and overregulation, EU and domestic, high taxes, a population spoiled by its cradle-to-grave welfare system, and politicians unwilling to address these problems.

My biggest fear for the US is whether we will follow Europe over this cliff.

IMO, Germany suffers from high employment because they re-integrated an entire gap state. They have twice as many people with the same number of jobs. High unemployment is not a problem, it is a symptom. However they had no choice.

If we don't establish the rules, we probably will follow Europe to some extent - their programs will become the norm. I am resigned to the fact that Euorphilia is a nasty by-product of globalization among certain groups.


Again- a laundry list of issues. What do you propose we do differently?

[brownapple]

GH,
Do you believe that China will be able to continue to balance Capitalism and Communism. They are walking a very fine line, should one or the other fail, there will be consequences. While many economists amazed at the growth of the private sector in China tout the victory of Capitalism (http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_39/b3648087.htm) , there are many who feel that the balance will not be maintained for long. The link below is to a Communist group arguably with the Marxist Ideology chip on its shoulder. (Cut and paste link to ICC to avoid PS.Com from showing please http://en.internationalism.org/wr/278_china.htm)
There are valid points which can be verfied with a little research. (See Unemployment (http://www.msu.edu/~gilesj/GilesParkZhang-final.pdf) poverty (http://www.edcnews.se/Reviews/Hussain2003.html) inflation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3713351.stm) ) According to Hawsbawn in his The Age of Extremes "Mao was fundamentally convinced of the importance of struggle, conflict and high tension as something that was not only essential to life but prevented the relapse into the weaknesses of the old Chinese society, whose very insistence on unchanging permanence and harmony had been its weakness." This principle is highly evident in China today.
A trip to Human Rights In China (http://www.hrichina.org/public/index) yields a factual glimpse into many problems facing the growth of industry in that nation today. Globalizition is bringing into sharp relief the many problems the Chinese government faces in the wake of their astounding growth.
In my mind it is unlikely that Capitalism and Communism will continue to co exist in China. The unrest that follows may lead to conflict. In the event of strains in China I see LRDs fear of the elephant making deals with the mice to be a real concern.


Sooner or later, Communism will disappear in China. Capitalism will not. The Chinese are a nation of merchants. Have been for thousands of years. Mao tried to change that and was unsuccessful.

Sure. there will be problems. And given the size of China, the problems will be bigger than those in Thailand (for example) or Malaysia.

But both of those nations survived some pretty significant problems and are thriving economies as well as democracies. I think China will do the same. And globalization is a key reason that will happen (as well as the influence of Hong Kong and Taiwan). Once it happens, Taiwan will voluntarilly rejoin China (my guess).

[brownapple]

The chances of war with China may be small, but I think “close to nil� is an exaggeration. Taiwan and North Korea are two possible starting points, for example.

China will not go to war over Taiwan. Taiwan is the control center for a large portion of their manufacturing industry. They will rattle sabres. They will not go to war.

As for North Korea, China might go to war there... against North Korea. Not in support.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Once it happens, Taiwan will voluntarilly rejoin China (my guess).

Interesting thought. I think the Chinese are too pragmatic these days to go to war over NK.

[ghuinness]

What is it? Is it a good or bad thing? Why? What impact does it have on the security environment? Was 9-11 related to globalization?

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone address your security question.

1) China flat out steals technology. They are not the huge market the stock market bookies suggest; Purchase prototypes and reverse engineer.

2) China is balking at many of the IEEE standards and conferences over encryption. Naturally they don't want the USA sniffing, but neither do we want the reverse.

3) How do you know what is written in your software? How do you audit it, verify it when it is created in a foreign country? We all know gov'ts sniff and we all know there are legal loopholes to facilitate this. How do you control those hooks or even know of their existance when the software is controlled/created externally?

my .02

[NousDefionsDoc]

So?

You think we don't do those things to them and everybody else?

That's like saying "China spies on us".

[brownapple]

Interesting thought. I think the Chinese are too pragmatic these days to go to war over NK.


I only think China will go to war against NK if that is the only way to shut down the madman there. They will not go to war supporting NK in any circumstances (short of us dropping a nuke in China).

[DanUCSB]

Interesting thought. I think the Chinese are too pragmatic these days to go to war over NK.

Agreed. As AL points out, China has more flashpoints of potential hostilities than just Taiwan and NK. I'm not terribly worried about these two: between international pressure (China needs international support to keep open the lines of technology--Europe, mainly--and oil, even if most of their sources aren't exactly democratic), the Seventh Fleet, and the harm it would do their own economy, I think Taiwan is all sabre-rattling; North Korea, likewise, I can see being mainly an exercise in Chinese soft power, wherein they work behind the scenes to hustle the Kim Jong-Il regime on its inevitable path to collapse.

What I think is more likely are those 'lesser-includeds' that we rarely think about. Again, I think the predictions are correct when they say that big-battle war is on the decline in favor of insurgency and other forms of LIC. I don't see Chinese marines storming Taiwanese beaches; I see low-level counter-insurgency in the western wilderness against Uighur separatists, or spiteful little naval spats around the Spratlys. Neither of which will get much media coverage.

To look into the longer term, I'm still not convinced that Taiwan or North Korea are the real hotspots. If there is going to be long-term tensions on a grand scale, my money is on the Sino-Indian border (conflict between two powers, each of which wanting to be the predominant regional power) or the Sino-Russian border (longest militarized border in the world). When looking at Chinese strategic concerns, the east and south gets all the attention, while the north and west are the real flashpoints.

[ghuinness]

So?

You think we don't do those things to them and everybody else?

That's like saying "China spies on us".

I'm sure we do, but I really don't want China controlling our infrastructure.

Why the US Govt approved the following is beyond me:
"Beijing-based Lenovo Group Ltd. won U.S. governmental clearance March 9 for its $1.25 billion purchase of IBM's personal computer unit, overcoming fears that the deal would let China spy on the United States."

Re scanned and found DennisW's post. I must have skipped a page on the first pass. Sums up my concern.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=68161#post68161

For example, lets say that little bit of technology we just gave to the Microsoft divison in China will allow then to tract unit sales but oopps... it will also allow their Intelligence agencies to track our troop movements. Is that a security issue? You bet your ass. Where do Microsoft, Dell etc. loyalties reside? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust todays Corporate leadership to safeguard security technology(I'm still pissed that Toshiba sold our stealth propeller technology to the Russians).

[jatx]

Why the US Govt approved the following is beyond me:
"Beijing-based Lenovo Group Ltd. won U.S. governmental clearance March 9 for its $1.25 billion purchase of IBM's personal computer unit, overcoming fears that the deal would let China spy on the United States."

I would remind you that the PC industry is the most mature segment of high-tech, and that China already manufactures excellent desktops and laptops for foreign sale (e.g., Legend, which aims for 10% US market share by the end of the decade). There were no security risk or tech transfer issues involved in the IBM acquisition. PC companies are changing hands because of the fact that desktop computers, which comprise the bulk of sales both here and abroad, cannot be produced for an economic profit by US manufacturers. By economic profit I mean a return on capital in excess of the company's cost of capital. That includes Dell, Gateway, HP, etc. The one exception has been eMachines at the low end, and they were snatched up last year by Gateway - to get access to new retailer relationships and some supply chain efficiencies. Yours truly planned the deal.

IBM faced similar problems with its PC business. The natural owner for such a business is someone who can bring new production efficiencies to bear, move the price point for consumers and take advantage of IBM's brand equity in the US. Hence the sale to Lenovo. I'm about as worried about that as if Cuisinart were sold to the Chinese.

[dennisw]

Originally posted by NDD
We need to export it now or we will be putting out these fires for the rest of time. That is what we are really talking about when we say, "Spreading democracy". It is as social and economic as political....... We have to engage. We have to drag them out of the dark. And we have to accept some compromise.

The above sounds like golbilization with conditions. I agree. What are the conditions and what compromises are you talking about? How do you "drag them" out of the dark?

Should we build a coalliton of nations to help us drag?

[Bill Harsey]

Question, Isn't a component of China's ability to being competitive in manufacturing that they are not bound by laws governing industrial waste?

[The Reaper]

Question, Isn't a component of China's ability to being competitive in manufacturing that they are not bound by laws governing industrial waste?

No unions. No EPA. No OSHA. No Workmans comp. No child labor laws. No minimum wage. Slave labor. No lawyers, to speak of.

Capitalist exploiter's dream. Socialist paradise?

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

US in 1901. We can let the EU worry about that.

I had some long conversations with a US executive that spent several years over there negotiating deals and observing work processes. I think the left does a faily good job of dealing with things like that through public opinion, etc.

[Bill Harsey]

No unions. No EPA. No OSHA. No Workmans comp. No child labor laws. No minimum wage. Slave labor. No lawyers, to speak of.

Capitalist exploiter's dream. Socialist paradise?

TR
I think you can get labor over there on some jobs cheaper than if you owned the humans as slaves here. That's a pretty neat trick. Yeah, yeah I know, prevailing wage...

Watch the developing water problem in China, pollution is becoming a factor.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Water is or is going to be a huge factor in many countries. Canada is a prime polluter for example. Water in LATAM is a joke.

I am with the bird and berry freaks on doing something about water.

[The Reaper]

US in 1901.

My thoughts exactly.

Wonder what the Depression will look like with a billion people?

Should we airdrop tham a few million copies of some Upton Sinclair stories? "The Jungle", perhaps?

TR

[The Reaper]

Water is or is going to be a huge factor in many countries. Canada is a prime polluter for example. Water in LATAM is a joke.

I am with the bird and berry freaks on doing something about water.

That is expensive and raises the cost of production.

Let them drink champagne instead.

From each, to each, according to his needs.

TR

[jatx]

I think you can get labor over there on some jobs cheaper than if you owned the humans as slaves here. That's a pretty neat trick. Yeah, yeah I know, prevailing wage...

Never purchase equity in a depreciating asset. Often forgotten axiom of capitalism.

[dennisw]

I am with the bird and berry freaks on doing something about water.
Do the bird and berry freaks hand in bushes or trees? :p

[Airbornelawyer]

No lawyers, to speak of.My firm has an office in Beijing. I think it has 3 lawyers.

[Airbornelawyer]

What was the obligation of the U.S. to help people in other countries hit by the recent tsunami with U.S. taxpayer dollars and man-hours?

TR
States have interests.

- What interests would have been served by U.S. inaction in the wake of this natural disaster?
- What interests were served by U.S. action?
- How might those interests have been served/disserved by other courses of action?

Related historical example: the December 1988 earthquake in the Armenian SSR, which killed 25,000+ and injured more than a half a million. The massive Western response, in the wake of an inadequate Soviet response, starkly demonstrated to millions of Soviet citizens both the bankruptcy of their own system and the superiority of the West.

[The Reaper]

My firm has an office in Beijing. I think it has 3 lawyers.

There you go.

That is probably half of the ones in country. :D

TR

[The Reaper]

States have interests.


Roger, I understand that.

Those may have been interests, but they were not obligations, unless there are treaties in effect with them that I am unaware of. I am confident that you will enlighten me, if so.

- What interests would have been served by U.S. inaction in the wake of this natural disaster?


Reduction of the national deficit, perhaps? What happened to other nations which did nothing? We had already been castigated for doing too little.

Did China help? Russia? Anything from the Euros approaching the contributions that we made? Anything bad happen to them?

- What interests were served by U.S. action?


The interests of the affected nations. Possible influence on some hearts and minds, though I have seen little reporting on anything other than the usual thanks from the recipients (like the man in the OBL t-shirt in line for US aid).

Did you not read GH's assessment of massive layoffs in the US?

"Harsh? So is life."

Does that only apply to American victims?

- How might those interests have been served/disserved by other courses of action?


We had already been condemned for doing too little. Was the aid of any long-term benefit to US national interests? Did we win any converts in return for the milliions spent? Were there areas to spend that public money and gain more leverage?

The disaster was closer to China and India (which was affected) than it was to us. Was there no regional support from the strongest nations in the area? Did they agree to be of any assistance to us based on our help? The two most populous nations in the world are major recipients of US outsourcing. Did we gain anything in the way of cooperation, concessions, or goodwill from them?

The real question is, is the U.S. not only the world's policeman, but also the world's pocketbook as well?

From the latest recommendation that all of the wealthy nations donate .7% of GDP to the poorest countries, I would suspect that many think we are.

TR

[brownapple]

No unions. No EPA. No OSHA. No Workmans comp. No child labor laws. No minimum wage. Slave labor. No lawyers, to speak of.

Capitalist exploiter's dream. Socialist paradise?

TR

That's what people were saying about Thailand twenty years ago. Wasn't entirely true, just as it isn't entirely true of China, but there was some truth to it. Thailand managed to get through it and so will China (one of my clients is the largest law firm in China. There are lawyers in China - very, very good ones).

[The Reaper]

That's what people were saying about Thailand twenty years ago. Wasn't entirely true, just as it isn't entirely true of China, but there was some truth to it. Thailand managed to get through it and so will China (one of my clients is the largest law firm in China. There are lawyers in China - very, very good ones).

Was Thailand claiming to be a Maoist Socialist state?

I need to do some reaseach and discover lawyers per 100,000 population in China vs. the U.S.

TR

[Airbornelawyer]

I need to do some reaseach and discover lawyers per 100,000 population in China vs. the U.S.Such research is subject to certain caveats. Certain legal services performed by lawyers in the United States are performed by paraprofessionals (notaries, paralegals, etc.) in other countries. Thus the ratios aren't directly comparable. This applies to Japan, where there are relatively few "lawyers" per se per 100,000, but quite a few more legal professionals not formally called lawyers.

[The Reaper]

Such research is subject to certain caveats. Certain legal services performed by lawyers in the United States are performed by paraprofessionals (notaries, paralegals, etc.) in other countries. Thus the ratios aren't directly comparable. This applies to Japan, where there are relatively few "lawyers" per se per 100,000, but quite a few more legal professionals not formally called lawyers.

Roger, saw that caveat on the web site.

Hmm, preliminary research shows 30 lawyers/100,000 in China, and 280/100,000 in the USA. Not sure whether your partners are counted against us, or them, AL, but I think I see one of the factors in the productivity issue.

TR

[ghuinness]

Can I ask a question?

I have read a few articles about China's debt problem and internal corruption. Some analysts speculate China's dependence on cheap credit, guaranteed employment and state-financed, state-owned industry will create a series of crises that will erupt between now and the end of 2006. Supposedly, any one of which could be sufficient to cause an implosion.

If I undserstand correctly, the U.S. is dependant on China to fund our account deficit.
East Asia finances US debt in return for continued unrestricted access to the US market.

With economic troubles looming in China, anyone concerned about a U.S. crash which may not be too far behind?

Just curious.

[lrd]

Why?Others have addressed parts of my answer already, but my basic fear is this:

China's interest in shipping lanes is growing. China is working deals for more oil, which makes me wonder what they are planning to do with it and how far they will go to get it.
“Cubans are running Venezuelan intelligence services, indoctrinating and training the military, and now this. Whoever heard of one country allowing another country to have police powers?” said Otto Reich, the former ambassador to Venezuela under President Ronald Reagan.
Venezuela and Cuba already have inter-country police powers. What kind of deal will Venezuela cut with China? How will that affect the security along our southern border?

I don't fear a direct war with China, but I do think they will try to push us as far as they can. Any conflict they become involved in will affect us. AL laid out many of the possible areas -- and I am far from an expert on this -- but I don't see how we can keep from being drawn into any conflict that arises. Especially, if we have major corporate investment in any of these countries (China included).

The elephant is dealing with the mice that gnaw us on one hand, and drawing us in to conflicts with mice on the other hand. In both cases, the elephant appears to be directing the action. I don't like that.

[Ambush Master]

Others have addressed parts of my answer already, but my basic fear is this:
China's interest in shipping lanes is growing. China is working deals for more oil, which makes me wonder what they are planning to do with it and how far they will go to get it.


Check out who OWNS most of the Real Estate that IS the Panama Canal !!!

[ghuinness]

China's interest in shipping lanes is growing. China is working deals for more oil, which makes me wonder what they are planning to do with it and how far they will go to get it.



I'm not sure, but I think their interest is somehow tied to the UN Law of The Sea Treaty. They are strong advocates for this treaty. When I started researching this and trying to figure out why Bush is so bullish on supporting this, the only reason I could think of was to placate China.

my .02

[lrd]

I'm not sure, but I think their interest is somehow tied to the UN Law of The Sea Treaty. They are strong advocates for this treaty. When I started researching this and trying to figure out why Bush is so bullish on supporting this, the only reason I could think of was to placate China.

my .02
There are open source images that show Chinese military buildup at choke-points in shipping lanes. That concerns me.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050117-115550-1929r

[NousDefionsDoc]

Is China Gap, Core or Seam?

[Lancer33]

:confused: Trepatation...my very first thread on PS. Hope this is in the right area.

During a phone conversation earlier tonight ,GH and I were discussing the pros and cons of "globalization vs isolationizm. I was in a Thai bar and it was not the correct venue for discussion.

It is open...which way should we go?

[brownapple]

Was Thailand claiming to be a Maoist Socialist state?

I need to do some reaseach and discover lawyers per 100,000 population in China vs. the U.S.

TR

No, but Thailand was a military dictatorship at the time.

[QRQ 30]

Isolation is impossible.

Transportation and communications have shrunk the world. In addition we rely upon raw materials for domestic products as well as foreign markets. Someday Earth will be just one planet among many , :munchin

[The Reaper]

No, but Thailand was a military dictatorship at the time.

So the parallel to China's case is?

Is China a military dictatorship?

TR

[brownapple]

One of the points I mentioned to Lancer had to do with the direction Western Europe has taken and my concern that the United States might follow the same road to ruin.

Western Europe as a whole has not created a new job in twenty years (not including the British Isles in this). A great deal of the reason is because the burden on companies created by government (socialized medicine, extensive social programs, etc.) and Unions that have made them increasingly unable to compete. The flagships of West European business, the various automobile firms, are almost entirely owned by US Automobile firms. Companies like Nokia, Siemens and Ericsson are in real trouble, finding it more and more difficult to compete in a business where small margins and creative innovation are the norm.

US businesses have done very, very well overall in maintaining a competitive lead worldwide and building it. One of the reasons they have successfully done so is because of the cultural focus of American culture on competitiveness and a willingness to take the actions necessary to be competitive. "Business is business" is an American concept, one that we have exported to the rest of the world, but much of the rest of the world really doesn't understand it. The United States has a cultural head-start on the rest of the world, IF we don't give it up.

We have all too many politicians and others who seem to want to give up that advantage (which is not about skills or resources, but attitude) by either being conservative in terms of continually moving ahead, or by burdeing the United States with a greater governmental burden in the form of social programs. Both (in my opinion) will hamstring the most important aspect of America, its ingenuity and "can-do" attitude.

No other nation could give rise to companies like Pfizer, or Nike, or IBM, or Microsoft. Companies that are not satisfied with what they have or the niche they fill, but are always innovating, improving, redefining themselves. That is the advantage America has, and the more Americans who use that advantage, the more dominating America will be. Not because of military power or economic power alone. But because of leadership.

[brownapple]

So the parallel to China's case is?

Is China a military dictatorship?

TR

Both were/are dictatorships that used military force to enforce governmental rule. Both had/have people saying:

No unions. No EPA. No OSHA. No Workmans comp. No child labor laws. No minimum wage. Slave labor.

Personally, I think no unions and few lawyers are good things. Unfortunately, there are unions and lawyers and none of the above is entirely true. Wasn't 100% true of Thailand 20 years ago and isn't 100% true of China now.

[The Reaper]

Both were/are dictatorships that used military force to enforce governmental rule.

Is China a dictatorship? Looks more like an oligarchy to me. Who is the current dictator and how did he arrive in power?

Personally, I think no unions and few lawyers are good things.

Well, at least we have common ground somewhere.

Unfortunately, there are unions and lawyers and none of the above is entirely true.

Apparently, my sarcasm is wasted. Other than official government groups, what unions (as we know them) exist in China?

Wasn't 100% true of Thailand 20 years ago and isn't 100% true of China now.

Why do you persist in drawing parallels between a small, pro-US country and the largest country on the planet which actively opposes of the US?

[Roguish Lawyer]

No lawyers, to speak of.

Not true. I have lawyer friends who have worked in Beijing and other parts of China doing foreign investment deals.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Good thread, but it is duplicative of another one, so I am merging them.

[The Reaper]

Not true. I have lawyer friends who have worked in Beijing and other parts of China doing foreign investment deals.

Review my subsequent comments and those of AL.

Try to keep up, Sir.

TR

[brownapple]

Why do you persist in drawing parallels between a small, pro-US country and the largest country on the planet which actively opposes of the US?

Why do you persist in failing to recognize that there is a lot more validity to parallels between Asian countries than there is to parallels between China and the United States?

And if you prefer, you can use Indonesia or Malaysia instead of Thailand. And China does not actively oppose the United States. Hasn't for a long time. It actively pursues its own interests, just as the United States does.

Oh, and regarding unions? There are a number of unions operating in China, including unions in computer assembly plants, unions in textile mills, and unions in some bottling plants.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I'm going to split this thread and name the split "Are we at war with China?"

[The Reaper]

Why do you persist in failing to recognize that there is a lot more validity to parallels between Asian countries than there is to parallels between China and the United States?

I see that as an invalid assumption. Guess we will have to agree to disagree.

And if you prefer, you can use Indonesia or Malaysia instead of Thailand. And China does not actively oppose the United States. Hasn't for a long time. It actively pursues its own interests, just as the United States does.

Really? I seem to recall a P-3 the People's Army Air Force chewed up pretty good in international airspace. Lots of jockeying behind the scenes with the Chinese acting to counter and oppose US interests, too.

Oh, and regarding unions? There are a number of unions operating in China, including unions in computer assembly plants, unions in textile mills, and unions in some bottling plants.

Do you think that they are independent unions that can strike, independently bargain to demand higher wages, picket the plant because of unfair practices or unsafe conditions, etc? Or are they essentially feel good groups with political leadership that that toes the party line?

TR

[The Reaper]

I'm going to split this thread and name the split "Are we at war with China?"


LMAO!

Classic.

TR

[brownapple]

Well, considering we just finished providing training for management on negotiations techniques specifically to use with one of those unions, they must have some ability to do something.

Btw, does the US act counter to or oppose China's interests?

[Airbornelawyer]

One of the points I mentioned to Lancer had to do with the direction Western Europe has taken and my concern that the United States might follow the same road to ruin.

Western Europe as a whole has not created a new job in twenty years (not including the British Isles in this). A great deal of the reason is because the burden on companies created by government (socialized medicine, extensive social programs, etc.) and Unions that have made them increasingly unable to compete. The flagships of West European business, the various automobile firms, are almost entirely owned by US Automobile firms. Companies like Nokia, Siemens and Ericsson are in real trouble, finding it more and more difficult to compete in a business where small margins and creative innovation are the norm.

US businesses have done very, very well overall in maintaining a competitive lead worldwide and building it. One of the reasons they have successfully done so is because of the cultural focus of American culture on competitiveness and a willingness to take the actions necessary to be competitive. "Business is business" is an American concept, one that we have exported to the rest of the world, but much of the rest of the world really doesn't understand it. The United States has a cultural head-start on the rest of the world, IF we don't give it up.

We have all too many politicians and others who seem to want to give up that advantage (which is not about skills or resources, but attitude) by either being conservative in terms of continually moving ahead, or by burdeing the United States with a greater governmental burden in the form of social programs. Both (in my opinion) will hamstring the most important aspect of America, its ingenuity and "can-do" attitude.

No other nation could give rise to companies like Pfizer, or Nike, or IBM, or Microsoft. Companies that are not satisfied with what they have or the niche they fill, but are always innovating, improving, redefining themselves. That is the advantage America has, and the more Americans who use that advantage, the more dominating America will be. Not because of military power or economic power alone. But because of leadership.

I generally agree with you on all of this. However, a few corrections:

Western Europe has created plenty of new jobs in the past 20 years, but they have lost more, so they have a net job loss. There are innovative European and other companies seeking and finding opportunities in Europe, but the stultifying bureaucracy and regulations destroy more opportunities while not preserving the old core industries.

As for the automobile industry, it is the Germans that control many of the flagships. Volkswagen AG is German-owned, as is BMW. Daimler-Benz acquired a flagging US flagship, Chrysler, to form Daimler-Chrysler. Ford is a big competitor in the German car market, though, as is Opel, owned by GM (but Opel has been a GM division since 1929).

Besides its own brands, Volkswagen owns Audi (Germany), Bentley (UK), Bugatti (Italy), Lamborghini (Italy), SEAT (Spain) and Škoda (Czech Republic). Porsche, while independent, is closely affiliated with Volkswagen. BMW owns Rolls Royce (UK).

Ford owns Aston Martin (UK), Jaguar (UK), Volvo Cars (Sweden) and Land Rover (UK). Besides Opel, GM owns Saab (Sweden) and Vauxhall (UK).

Fiat remains Italian, and owns Alfa Romeo, Ferrari and Maserati. Renault and Peugeot remain French, though Nissan has a large stake in Renault (and Renault has a large stake in Nissan). Peugeot owns France's other major auto manufacturer, Citroën.

The flagships of the European automobile industry were in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden. American automakers have essentially acquired Sweden's auto industry (at least for cars, Scania remains a major truck builder). The US and Germany have divided up Britain's auto industry. German, French and Italian manufacturers continue to own most of their own countries' auto industry, though the Germans have made inroads in Italy.

[lrd]

Interesting reading on China: http://www.ec.cn/english/publishInfo/200500.jsp

[brownapple]

Daimler-Chrysler:

Company Ownership: DaimlerChrysler is owned by European, U.S. and other international investors. Approximately one billion shares are circulating.

Global Stock: The DaimlerChrysler share is traded on all of the world's key stock exchanges, among them New York, Frankfurt and Tokyo.

[The Reaper]

Daimler-Chrysler:

Daimler bought Chrysler, not the other way round.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1911-2005Mar25.html

Rice, who visited Beijing this week, said she had been told by the Chinese leadership that they will begin to make amends for the recent passage of a law authorizing the use of force against Taiwan if it moves toward formal independence. She said Chinese leaders understood that the law -- mainly drafted for internal political reasons -- had negative consequences overseas. "They talked a good deal about what they were going to try to do to reduce tensions in the Taiwan Straits," she said. "And we'll see. That would be a good next step."

Rice also said she made the case to Chinese officials that they cannot make a distinction between stability on the Korean Peninsula and North Korea possessing nuclear weapons. In more than two years of talks over North Korea's nuclear ambitions, a major problem for U.S. policy has been that China has been hesitant to press North Korea too hard for fears of sparking instability in the closed communist country on its border.

"My discussion with the Chinese was to suggest to them that those two [concepts] are indivisible," Rice said. "They understand that a nuclear North Korea on the Korean Peninsula has potentially unpredictable effects that will not make the Korean Peninsula very stable, will not make the region very stable. And so I didn't find much pushback on that."

[brownapple]

Daimler bought Chrysler, not the other way round.

TR


My point was that I discounted Daimler-Chrysler, seeing it as a true multi-national corporation, not American, German or anything else. That was based on their vision of themselves.

[The Reaper]

My point was that I discounted Daimler-Chrysler, seeing it as a true multi-national corporation, not American, German or anything else. That was based on their vision of themselves.

Sure.

Look at the corporate leadership.

Who is really running this company?

TR

The Board of Management

Chairman of the Board of Management

Prof. Jürgen E. Schrempp
Appointed until: 2008; first appointed: 1998 (DBAG: 1987)

Members of the Board of Management

Dr. Eckhard Cordes
Mercedes Car Group
Appointed until: 2008; first appointed: 1998 (DBAG 1996)

Günther Fleig
Human Resources & Labor Relations Director
Appointed until: 2009; first appointed: 1999

Dr. Rüdiger Grube
Corporate Development / China
Appointed until: 2007; first appointed: 2001

Prof. Jürgen Hubbert
Executive Automotive Committee (EAC)
Appointed until: 2005; first appointed: 1998 (DBAG: 1987)

Andreas Renschler
Commercial Vehicles
Appointed until: 2007; first appointed: 2004

Thomas W. Sidlik
Global Procurement & Supply
Appointed until: 2008; first appointed: 1998 (Chrysler Corp. 1992)

Bodo Uebber
Finance & Controlling / Financial Services
Appointed until: 2006; first appointed: 2003

Dr. Thomas Weber
Research & Technology
Appointed until: 2010; first appointed: 2003

Dr. Dieter Zetsche
Chrysler Group
Appointed until: 2008; first appointed: 1998 (DBAG 1997)

Thomas W. LaSorda
Deputy Member of the Board of Management -
Chief Operating Officer (COO) Chrysler Group
Appointed until: 2007; first appointed: 2004

[lksteve]

Sure.

Who is really running this company?
Prof. Jürgen E. Schrempp
Dr. Eckhard Cordes
Günther Fleig
Dr. Rüdiger Grube
Prof. Jürgen Hubbert
Andreas Renschler
Thomas W. Sidlik
Bodo Uebber
Dr. Thomas Weber
Dr. Dieter Zetsche
Thomas W. LaSorda

there is a definate teutonic bias in the management of this multi-national corporation...

[Airbornelawyer]

Interesting reading on China: http://www.ec.cn/english/publishInfo/200500.jsp

When reading, keep in mind that that is a site run by the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, so a grain of salt is advised.

[Airbornelawyer]

My point was that I discounted Daimler-Chrysler, seeing it as a true multi-national corporation, not American, German or anything else. That was based on their vision of themselves.When they joined, it was described as a merger of equals. It was subsequently disclosed that it was effectively an acquisition by Daimler, despite the way the company seeks to portray things.

It is a multinational in the sense of diverse shareholding, though. The largest shareholders are Deutsche Bank AG (12%), the Kuwait Investment Authority (7%, representing the ruling al-Sabah family) and Dubai Holding (2%, representing the Emir of Dubai).

German companies also have another level of management, known as a supervisory board, which includes representatives appointed by shareholders and by the employees.

Supervisory Board Shareholder Representatives (4 German, 4 American, 1 Dutch, 1 Canadian):

- Hilmar Kopper, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of DaimlerChrysler AG
- Earl G. Graves, Chairman and CEO of Earl G. Graves Ltd.
- Prof. Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Public Economics, Leiden University, The
Netherlands
- Robert J. Lanigan, Chairman Emeritus of Owens-Illinois, Inc.
- Peter A. Magowan, President, San Francisco Giants
- William A. Owens, President and CEO, Nortel Networks Corporation
- Dr. rer. pol. Manfred Schneider, Chairman, Supervisory Board, Bayer AG
- Bernhard Walter, former Spokesman, Board of Managing Directors, Dresdner Bank AG
- Lynton R. Wilson, Chairman of the Board, CAE Inc., Chairman of the Board, Nortel Networks Corporation
- Dr.-Ing. Mark Wössner, former CEO and Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Bertelsmann AG

Supervisory Board Employee Representatives (9 Germans, 1 American):

- Erich Klemm, Chairman, Corporate Workers Council, DaimlerChrysler
- Prof. Dr. Heinrich Flegel, Director, Research Manufacturing, Engineering, DaimlerChrysler AG
- Nate Gooden, Vice President of the UAW
- Dr. Thomas Klebe, Director, Department for General Shop Floor Policy and Codetermination, German Metalworkers' Union
- Jürgen Langer, Chairman of the Works Council, Frankfurt/Offenbach Dealership
- Helmut Lense, Chairman, Workers Council, Untertürkheim Plant, DaimlerChrysler AG
- Gerd Rheude, Chairman, Workers Council, Wörth Plant, DaimlerChrysler AG
- Udo Richter, Chairman, Workers Council, Bremen Plant, DaimlerChrysler AG
- Wolf Jürgen Röder, Member of the Executive Council of German Metalworkers’ Union
- Stefan Schwaab, Gaggenau, Vice Chairman, Workers Council, Gaggenau Plant, DaimlerChrysler AG

Seems a far stronger Teutonic bias among the workers themselves than among the shareholders, but the three groups together (including the main board), and the fact that the largest single shareholder is Deutsche Bank, make it essentially a German multinational.

[lrd]

When reading, keep in mind that that is a site run by the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China, so a grain of salt is advised.
I saw that at the bottom of the page. It made me wonder about the rational behind what was released for the daily briefing.

[Airbornelawyer]

The pharmaceuticals industry is probably more appropriately described as multinational. The major companies are a mix of US, British, French, Swiss and German concerns, but most are mixed through various mergers and acquisitions. The top companies are nominally American (Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Abbott Labs, Wyeth, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ely Lilly), British (GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca), French (Sanofi-Aventis), German (Bayer) and Swiss (Novartis, Roche).

An example of the mixing is Sanofi-Aventis, the result of the 2004 takeover by Sanofi-Synthelabo, a French company, of Aventis, a French-German company. Sanofi had started out by buying Sterling-Winthrop, a US subdivision of Kodak active in the world pharmaceutical market. Sanofi then merged with Synthelabo, another French company, then a joint venture partner with Searle. Sanofi-Synthelabo took over the joint venture (Searle later became part of Pfizer).

Aventis was nominally a French company, but was the result of the merger of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, a French-US company, and Hoechst-Marion-Roussel, a German-US-French company.

Rhone-Poulenc was a French chemical company that went heavily into pharmaceuticals by buying Pasteur-Merrieux (French) and Connaught Labs (Canadian). It then bought US company Rorer (makers of Maalox).

Hoechst was one of Germany's major chemical companies, a part of the IG Farben conglomerate broken up after World War Two (as were Bayer and BASF). Hoechst bought Roussel, a French company, to beef up its pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile, US chemical company Dow also tried its hand in pharmaceuticals. It acquired Marion Labs, and merged its own pharmaceutical division with Richardson-Merrell to form Marion Merrell Dow. Dow scrapped its plans and sold Marion Merrell Dow to Hoechst-Roussel, forming Hoechst-Marion-Roussel.

We use the term multi-national, meaning a company located in several nations. Some prefer the term trans-national, implying a company that operates across national borders. Perhaps a new term is needed to capture the notion that these companies are to some extent not tied to any nation, but view themselves as "beyond" the concept of nation. Meta-national corporation, anyone? :rolleyes:

[NousDefionsDoc]

China is estimated to require a doubling of their energy requirements in the next generation if they are to achieve their goals.

They will have to spend trillions of dollars in infrastructure to handle it.

Where will they have to go to get the money?

[Surf n Turf]

The pharmaceuticals industry is probably more appropriately described as multinational.

Hoechst was one of Germany's major chemical companies, a part of the IG Farben conglomerate broken up after World War Two (as were Bayer and BASF). Hoechst bought Roussel, a French company, to beef up its pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile, US chemical company Dow also tried its hand in pharmaceuticals. It acquired Marion Labs, and merged its own pharmaceutical division with Richardson-Merrell to form Marion Merrell Dow. Dow scrapped its plans and sold Marion Merrell Dow to Hoechst-Roussel, forming Hoechst-Marion-Roussel.

Meta-national corporation, anyone? :rolleyes:

AL,

Your research is very good.

Meta-national companies are a fact ---

Also, Hoechst was purchased by Aventis, SA, (French) in December 2004.
In April 2005, Aventis SA, agreed to be taken over by smaller rival Sanofi-Synthelabo SA. (also French) creating the world's third-biggest drugmaker.- Sanofi-Aventis

SnT

[ghuinness]

Where will they have to go to get the money?

- Japan will stop loans as of 2008 and expected to drop 11% by Mar 31 this year.

- Possibly the IMF.

- Any foreign investors: e.g. EU, Africa, Iran, Australia (news article (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/28/news/australia.html) )

- Panama Canal; fees increasing 60% through 2007

- Investors who don't pay any attention to the internal corruption and can be persuaded that investing in China is a great profit. Just like the tech bubble when people paid $600+ for Qualcom. Current corruption (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/22/business/corrupt.html)
Real face of China's economy as of 2002 - not much has changed (http://www.falunnews.org.il/ch_ec/index.shtml)
They have until the end of 2006 to clean up their internal mess and hope foreign investors will believe they are worth the risk. I read the Chinese have spent about $350 billion in asset transfers in an attempt to convince foreigners that their banks are worth investing.

- The funding for the IBM deal looks questionable to me.
$600 Mil (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050328/16/3rgy4.html) from internal banks that fail all due diligence tests.

- Apparently we are loaning China National Nuclear Corp $5 Billion.
News report (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6964)

Recently I read that China is following the doctrine of Wang Xiaodong, he has a book out 'Chinese Nationalism Under the Shadow of Globalisation' published in 1999. (Still trying to find a copy):
"the country should embrace globalisation join the World Trade Organisation and open itself to foreign capital.
The second position, emphasised, in the face of economic growth, the importance of maintaining social equity.
The third, argued that the Chinese state should pursue a more selective and protectionist approach towards globalisation, borrowing from the Japanese and South Korean experiences, in order to prevent China becoming permanently trapped at the lower ends of the global division of labour. "

my .02

[NousDefionsDoc]

The IMF and EU will attach conditions - environmental, rule of law, etc. to any loans. Globalization

Iran won't invest in China.

Africa and Australia have trillions of dollars to invest in China?

They have until the end of 2006 to clean up their internal mess and hope foreign investors will believe they are worth the risk. I read the Chinese have spent about $350 billion in asset transfers in an attempt to convince foreigners that their banks are worth investing.
Right, globalization.

[ghuinness]

The IMF and EU will attach conditions - environmental, rule of law, etc. to any loans. Globalization

Which is why the IMF told them to clean up their act.


Iran won't invest in China.
.
Really? (http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/?NewsCode=23602&NewsKind=Current+Affairs)


Africa and Australia have trillions of dollars to invest in China?

I am constantly amazed how much money there is in Africa. Trillions - no.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Your link discusses Chinese investiment in Iran, not vice versa.

[ghuinness]

Your link discusses Chinese investiment in Iran, not vice versa.

If China gained the anticipated $7 billion out of the deal, what is the difference? (figures expected at the end of 2004).

[NousDefionsDoc]

FDI is ownership. A stake. The Iranians are selling oil, not buying into China's future.

You do know it is against Islamic law to earn interest? The Malaysians seem to be the only ones able to reconciliate the conflict.

[Airbornelawyer]

FDI is ownership. A stake. The Iranians are selling oil, not buying into China's future.

You do know it is against Islamic law to earn interest? The Malaysians seem to be the only ones able to reconciliate the conflict.Not entirely true. When I was on law review, I edited an article on Islamic lending practices and the various techniques countries, banks and businesses come up with to charge what is in effect interest, if not in name. I can't remember the details, but there's bound to be some discussion somewhere on-line.

[Airbornelawyer]

By the way, the IMF has not made a loan to China since 1986.

China entered into a standby arrangement on November 12, 1986 for $597,725,000 SDRs (Special Drawing Rights (http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm), the IMF unit of account). It was fully paid off in 1992.

[ghuinness]

FDI is ownership. A stake. The Iranians are selling oil, not buying into China's future.

You do know it is against Islamic law to earn interest? The Malaysians seem to be the only ones able to reconciliate the conflict.

No, I did not know that. So why did Iran and China ink a deal the day after the Iraq election? deal (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_5556.shtml)

Then why are they doing this? (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_6111.shtml)

Incidentally, Tehran market is crashing... :D

[NousDefionsDoc]

Not entirely true. When I was on law review, I edited an article on Islamic lending practices and the various techniques countries, banks and businesses come up with to charge what is in effect interest, if not in name. I can't remember the details, but there's bound to be some discussion somewhere on-line.
They call it rent, which is permissible. Yes, some of the more moderate countries get around it. Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. And these countries have become conduits. But I doubt Iran will do so under the present leadership.

[NousDefionsDoc]

No, I did not know that. So why did Iran and China ink a deal the day after the Iraq election? deal (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_5556.shtml)

Then why are they doing this? (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_6111.shtml)

Incidentally, Tehran market is crashing... :D
I fail to see any of this as FDI from Iran into China. If the "training and expertise" is not military, my guess is it will be to get the oil out of the ground faster. China is helping China. And I would imagine they are looking for friends to hedge world opinion against a US invasion or sanctions.

At any rate, if they follow the WTO framework - that is globalization, is it not?

[Airbornelawyer]

They call it rent, which is permissible. Yes, some of the more moderate countries get around it. Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. And these countries have become conduits. But I doubt Iran will do so under the present leadership.
There are a variety of techniques.

The Qur'anic prohibition against riba, or usury, is essentially a prohibition against getting something for nothing. The traditional approach has been to divide up the various functions of lenders to identify which are riba and which are not (banks do provide services, which are not riba).

Under Iranian law, the main techniques for "Islamic banking" are various types of joint ventures between the lender and lendee. Article 3 of the Law for Interest Free Banking of the Islamic Republic of Iran identifies these as "joint venture, Mozarebeh, hire-purchase, installment transaction, Mozara'ah, Mosaqat, direct investment, forward dealings and joaalah transactions." Under Article 5, proceeds from these transactions may be apportioned between the bank and the other party. Additionally, Article 6 allows for banks to "attract and mobilize deposits" by "promotional methods" such as bonuses to depositors in cash or in kind on interest-free deposits (gharz al-hasaneh deposits) and exemptions or discounts on commissions and fees. These are not considered riba.

Regarding thes types of transactions, joaalah is defined as "the undertaking by one party to pay a specified money (the joal) to another party in return for rendering a specified service in accordance with the terms of the contract." It comes from the same Arabic root that means anything from pay to wages to bribe to reward, and essentially treats the bank as an employer rather than a lender. Mozarebeh is a "contract wherein the bank undertakes to provide the cash capital and other party undertakes to use the capital for commercial purposes and divide the profit at a specified ratio between the two parties at the end of the term of the contract." Mozarebeh is the Farsi equivalent of mudaraba, a silent partnership under Islamic law.

Mosaqat and mozara'ah are agricultural contracts. Mosaqat is a "contract between the owner of an orchard or garden with another party for the purpose of gathering the harvest of the orchard or garden and dividing it, in a specified ratio, between the two parties." Mozara'ah is defined as a "contract where the bank turns over a specified plot of land for a specified period of time to another party for the purpose of farming the land and dividing the harvest between the two parties at a specified ratio."

[ghuinness]

I fail to see any of this as FDI from Iran into China. If the "training and expertise" is not military, my guess is it will be to get the oil out of the ground faster. China is helping China. And I would imagine they are looking for friends to hedge world opinion against a US invasion or sanctions.

At any rate, if they follow the WTO framework - that is globalization, is it not?

Globalisation yes, but for what purpose? I don't agree with you that the underlying motive is purely economic. China is helping China in order to encircle the USA. I don't trust them and I wish people would wake up and see the game China is playing. That will never happen as long the focus is the P&L statement.

my .02

[Airbornelawyer]

Globalisation yes, but for what purpose? I don't agree with you that the underlying motive is purely economic. China is helping China in order to encircle the USA. I don't trust them and I wish people would wake up and see the game China is playing. That will never happen as long the focus is the P&L statement.

my .02The underlying motive is security, of which economic security is just one component.

Others more knowledgeable on Chinese affairs than I have argued that China does not seek to isolate or encircle the US, but to ensure that China cannot be isolated and encircled. They argue that China seeks the same sort of hegemony in East Asia that it views the United States as enjoying in the Western Hemisphere since the advent of the Monroe Doctrine.

There is some argument as to how much hemispheric security we actually enjoy, given Cuba, narcotrafficking and transnational terrorism, but for most of our existence we have been relatively unthreatened in our hemisphere. None of the major nations of the hemisphere - Brazil, Mexico, Canada - or the second-tier - Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru and Venezuela - are serious threats to the US (though Venezuela may become a thorn in our sides), and all but Cuba are formally our allies. The Monroe Doctrine is not as absolute as it was a century ago, but non-American powers generally defer to the US in the region. German attempts to fill a power vacuum created by Spain's defeat in 1898 were soundly rebuffed in Venezuela and Mexico, as were Soviet attempts in Central America.

From China's perspective, it is the one that is encircled. China's only reliable allies in East Asia are relatively inconsequential states - Burma, Laos and North Korea - and the last of these is proving a troublesome ally. Meanwhile, China borders or faces Russia, India, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, all major states or economic powerhouses (compared to China, Vietnam is small, but it is the 13th largest country in the world) and all threats in various ways to Chinese hegemonic ambitions. Furthermore, while China's only close ally in the Western Hemisphere is Cuba, the United States has allies throughout East and Southeast Asia, the most important being South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Thailand, but Australia could also be added to the list. And to the extent the US improves its relationships with other countries of the region - Russia, India, Mongolia, Indonesia, even Vietnam - it fuels the Chinese perception of encirclement.

Economic measures address this fear in part two ways: one, securing access to natural resources and high-technology improves China's overall power. Second, enmeshing the US, EU Japan and other powers in a web of economic interests leads us to deter ourselves from acting against China's interests, since there are more and more non-Chinese whose own economic interests are tied to China's.

[ghuinness]

Thanks AL.

If anyone is interested I found a recent article by
Wang Xiaodong (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/asiaResearchCentre/pdf/WANGXiaodongFinalTranscriptEnglish.pdf)

[Martin]

A rising China counters US clout in Africa (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p01s01-woaf.html)

[NousDefionsDoc]

Good. We have no complaint since we have basically abandoned Africa to its fate.

The same thing will happen in LATAM unless the admin gets on the ball. Venezuela, Ecuador, etc.

[ghuinness]

Good. We have no complaint since we have basically abandoned Africa to its fate.

The same thing will happen in LATAM unless the admin gets on the ball. Venezuela, Ecuador, etc.


Good?

I understood from your post above that suggesting Africa was ludicrous.

Expansion is already occuring in LATAM and elsewhere.

- China is putting the squeeze on Australia.
- controls the Panama Canal and made agreements in December with VE for shipping
- aggressively pursuing interests in the Caribbean

But according to everyone this is all economic security. I don't believe it.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Suggesting Africa was ludicrous as far as what?

Are you confused? Africa investing in China as FDI? Not happening. China engaging Africa? Happening. There is a difference. You seem to think China is a Gap state - its not anymore. Africa is a Gap continent (with exceptions noted). If China wants to engage Sudan, Somalia, etc. - more power to them. It will be interesting to see how China manages the associated security issues. As China accepts the new rules they will have to accept from the Core, those rules should trickle down to Africa. It will take forever that way, but it will happen.

You have to accept a few basic premises or you won't get anywhere.
1. The US is not the only economic entity in the world.
2. The EU and Asia, probably led by China in the future will be near-peer competitors in the economic arena.
3. Asi es la vida.
4. Competition is not necessarily a bad thing - it keeps us from getting lazy.
5. We will not have a war with China.
6. If we abandon an area, we have no right to whine when somebody else moves in.
7. We can't do it all by ourselves economically. Militarily yes, economically no.

You need to stop looking under the bed for the boogeyman. There isn't one big one, there are a lot of little ones. China is on the right track - don't try to derail them. They are trying to join.

Unchecked growth causes problems. They will hit their own snag and have to take a step back.

[Martin]

It'd be very interesting to hear if you think the same way after reading those Chinese Colonels' book, NDD. Please, if you read it, mention your take on it.

[Airbornelawyer]

China is not exactly new to Africa. Anyone remember Admiral Cheng Ho (Zheng He in pinyin)? The Mings intended to expand their dynasty south and west, turning the Indian Ocean into a Chinese lake. But internal problems - mainly the cost of the admiral's expeditions - and the ever-present threat from the north caused the Mings to abandon these plans.

More recently, while the US and its allies were busy trying to contain Soviet communist expansion in Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia, we also "basically abandoned Africa to its fate." Africa was a problem for the colonial powers, increasing becoming the former colonial masters - France, the UK, Belgium and Portugal. US interests were minimal, and mainly amounted to aiding these European countries (but not to maintain their empires) and occasionally countering Soviet and Cuban inroads. China viewed Africa as an opportunity then, and moved to sell arms and build up friendly Maoist groups. China's successes in building a network of African clients were, shall we say, less than stellar. A number of countries accepted Chinese arms and Chinese advisors, notably Tanzania (where Nyerere also fiddled with Chinese ideology and his own version of the Great Leap Forward), but as soon as a better offer came along, jumped ship to either the Soviets or the West. China's successes mirrored those in East Asia, where the major powers became Soviet or US allies/clients while China settled for Burma and Laos. Or Europe, where China's great success was Albania, and even Albania abandoned them after Mao.

The "major" powers in Africa - South Africa, Nigeria, Congo/Zaire, Ethiopia - were either Soviet or Western allies.

China settled for a string of South Asian and Middle East states which would never be reliable allies or share China's ideology but would at least buy their weapons, even while preferring US, Soviet, French or other European suppliers - mainly Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq.

In the 1990s, China shifted from ideological to economic motives for its arms sales, though profits aren't necessarily the main component - building a better technological base for its arms production is also a major factor. And who have been China's main customers in the 10-15 years? Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran and Sri Lanka: Burma (Myanmar): 150 Type YW-531/Type-85 APCs (1993); 50 Type-69-II MBTs (1993); 50 Type-63 light tanks (1993); 30 Type-63 107mm MRLs (1993); 4 Type-311 fire control radars, for use with 24 Type-74 37mm AA guns (1993); 12 F-7M fighter aircraft (1998-99); 36 PL-2A SRAAMs (1993) and 36 PL-5B SRAAMs (1998-99), for use with the F-7Ms; 6 Houxin Class FAC(M) (1995-97); 48 C-801K/CSS-N-4 Sardine air-launched anti-ship missiles, for Houxin Class FAC(M)s (1995-97); 12 K-8 Karakorum-8 jet trainer aircraft (1999)
Bangladesh: 5 Type-653 ARVs (1993); 1 T-43 Class minesweeper (1994); 1 Haizhui Class patrol craft (1995); 18 Type-59-1 130mm towed guns (1996); 4 F-7B fighter aircraft (1999-2000); 21 HN-5A portable SAMs and 114 RED ARROW-8 ATGMs (2001).
Pakistan: 750 QW-1 Vanguard (Anza-2) MANPADS (1994-2003); 20 Type-653 ARV (1995); 36 LY-60 SAMs and 3 LL-1 fire control radars for modernized Tariq (Amazon) Class frigates (1996-97); 4 Y-12 transport aircraft (1996-97); 36 LY-60 SAMs and 3 LL-1 fire control radars for modernized Tariq (Amazon) Class frigates (1996-97); 16 C-802K/CSS-N-8 Saccade anti-ship missiles and 2 Type-347G fire control radars for Jalalat Class FACs (1997-99); 57 F-7PG fighter aircraft, including 6-9 trainer versions (2001-03); 6 K-8 Karakorum-8 jet trainer aircraft (2003).
Iran: Between 1996 and 1999, Iran took delivery of 80 C-802/CSS-N-8 Saccade anti-ship missiles for its Kaman Class (Combattante-2 Type) FAC and 24 C-801K/CSS-N-4 Sardine air-launched anti-ship missiles. In 1996, it received 5 F-7M fighter aircraft; 14 Y-7 transport aircraft were ordered in 1996, of which 8 appear to have been delivered, with the rest expected in 2005-06; 9 Y-12 transport aircraft were delivered in 1994-9; in 2002-03, Iran received 35 FL-6 anti-ship missiles, a copy of the Italian Sea Killer ASM for use on Iran's SH-3D helicopters.
Sri Lanka: 1 Yuhai/Wuhu-A Class landing ship (1995); 3 Haizhui Class patrol craft (1996); 1 Haiqing Class patrol craft (1996); 3 Shanghai Class patrol craft (1998); 2 Lushun class patrol craft (1998); 36 Type-66 152mm towed guns (1999); 10 CJ-6 trainer aircraft (2000); 6 K-8 Karakorum-8 jet trainer aircraft (2001)From a military perspective, it would seem China's main focus in these deals is containing India, with garnering hard currency a second priority.

China's other major deals in this period also have a regional/economic focus. Two deals were inked with Kuwait: a 1998 deal, with delivery in 2000-01, for 27 PZL-45 155mm SP guns, 1 Type-653 ARV, 4 Type YW-531/Type-85 APCs, and 27 PCZ-45 ALVs; and a 2001 deal, with delivery in 2002-03, for 24 PZL-45s, 1 Type-653, 4 Type YW-531/Type-85s, and 24 PCZ-45s. Thailand received 1 Similan Class support ship (1996) and 28 C-801/CSS-N-4 Sardine anti-ship missiles (2000). Neither Kuwait or Thailand, though, is likely to choose China over the US in a conflict.

In Africa, Arab North Africa was a better market than Sub-Saharan Africa, though both pale in comparison with Asia. Between 2000 and 2002, Algeria took delivery of 24 C-802/CSS-N-8 Saccade anti-ship missiles for its Djebel Chinoise Class FACs. Between 2001 and 2004, Egypt received 80 K-8 Karakorum-8 jet trainers. Sudan got 6 F-7M fighters in 1997 and Tunisia received 3 Haizhui Class patrol craft in 1994.

As for Sub-Saharan Africa:
Eritrea: 4 Y-12 transport aircraft (1994).
Kenya: 9 Y-12s (1997).
Mali: 2 Z-9B (AS-365/AS-565) helicopters (2000).
Mauritania: 2 Y-12s (1994-95) and 1 Y-7 transport (1997).
Namibia: 2 Y-12s (1997) and 4 K-8 Karakorum-8 jet trainers (2001).
Sierra Leone: 1 Haizhui Class patrol craft (1997).
Tanzania: 2 Y-12s (1994).
Zambia: 3 Y-12s (1996) and 8 K-8s (2000)I don't have data for small arms transfers, where China has had somewhat more success since its lower tech weapons are still cheap and reliable.

In Africa today, China seems to be falling into the same pattern as before and elsewhere. It may be looking for oil in Angola and building roads in Rwanda, but it does not have the impact or clout of Western nations. The countries where it is gaining the most influence are, once again, rogue states that few others will deal with - Sudan and Zimbabwe.

On the other side of the equation, I should note that the United States has not abandoned Africa, nor has it any intention to. That same impetus that is pushing China to expand its efforts in Africa - the need for oil and minerals - is also keeping the US engaged there. And we have strategic interests, especially in the Sahara and the Horn of Africa, that China does not.

Among the top suppliers of crude oil to the United States, Nigeria ranks 5th and Angola ranks 7th. We are by far Angola's largest export partner (the trade deficit we run with Angola doesn't seem to bother anyone though). Gabon ranks 14th, but we receive over half of Gabon's production. Algeria is 15th (about 90% of Algeria's production goes to Western Europe, mainly Italy and France). We are also heavily involved in developing Equatorial Guinea's oil industry, as well as others on the Gulf of Guinea, but none of these are as important as Nigeria, Angola, Gabon and Algeria.

Our national security interests keep us focused on those states where AQ and other Islamist terrorists have made inroads or coudl affect us - Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti, Sudan, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Niger, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt - but we are also involved elsewhere.

The main FMS recipients over the past few years include Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and, until 2001, Zimbabwe. Main Foreign Military Financing Program recipients are Nigeria, South Africa, Botswana, Kenya and Senegal. For commercial sales, Nigeria, South Africa and Botswana are the main buyers. Top IMET recipients are Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa. The leaders for ACRI (now ACOTA) training has been Senegal, Uganda, Malawi, Mali, Ghana, Benin, Côte d'Ivoire and Kenya.

As a theater of American interest, Africa certainly pales in comparison with the Middle East and East Asia, and is behind Latam and Eastern Europe, but we are far from abandoning it to the Chinese or anyone.

[vsvo]

"The Chinese are very nice[.] They don't have anything to do with any politics or problems. Things move smoothly, successfully. They are very hard workers looking for business, not politics."

Sudan's Energy and Mining Minister Awad Ahmed Jaz

China Invests Heavily in Sudan's Oil Industry (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html)
Beijing Supplies Arms Used on Villagers

By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, December 23, 2004; Page A01

[Roguish Lawyer]

AL:

The coolest thing I saw at the National Palace Museum when I was there in like 1988 was a Ming vase with Arabic writing on it.

Anyone who hasn't been there should go. Best art museum I have ever been to.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I thought we agreed
The countries where it is gaining the most influence are, once again, rogue states that few others will deal with - Sudan and Zimbabwe.
but I was wrong
but we are far from abandoning it to the Chinese or anyone.
:o

Abandon is a relative and subjective term with the US. There are many in LATAM that feel abandoned as well.

[ghuinness]

Are you confused? Africa investing in China as FDI? Not happening. China engaging Africa? Happening. There is a difference. You seem to think China is a Gap state - its not anymore. Africa is a Gap continent (with exceptions noted). If China wants to engage Sudan, Somalia, etc. - more power to them. It will be interesting to see how China manages the associated security issues. As China accepts the new rules they will have to accept from the Core, those rules should trickle down to Africa. It will take forever that way, but it will happen.

.....

You need to stop looking under the bed for the boogeyman. There isn't one big one, there are a lot of little ones. China is on the right track - don't try to derail them. They are trying to join.

Unchecked growth causes problems. They will hit their own snag and have to take a step back.

NDD. Sorry, not running off on this one.

Confused? I hope so. I don't have a rosy picture.

FDI? Your original question: “Where will they have to go to get the money”. All my answers pertained to import/export. Given China’s current status FDI should be next to impossible to achieve hence their focus on trade. Obviously some nations will turn a blind eye, they already have. The IBM deal was a perfect example; it was backed not only by Chinese banks but EU and American banks. Clearly China does not meet IMF and WTO requirements, but that did not deter investors. Today, Bank of America announced it is considering a substantial investment in a large Chinese Bank in the range of $14B. This doesn't concern you?

I am not looking for the “boogeyman” as you put it. In fact, it is the opposite. The more I try and disprove my fears, the more questions I find. I started with the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) trying to answer the simple question: Why is Condi pushing this? What is so important about this Treaty that addresses our “National Security”?

I looked at it from every conceivable angle and determined its greatest impact was to trade; the economy. Everything pointed to China. I started reviewing their trade agreements: with who and when. Timing on some of these agreements was the next thing that hit me. One deal that stood out occured Feb 2; China loaned Russia $6B which was speculated to be a loan to obtain leverage. Russia coincidentally then pays off it’s debt with the IMF which wasn’t due until 2008. What did Russia do next? Sign agreements with Iran and Syria. Convenient? Coincidental? Reading too much into it? Hedging their bets as you put it?

I don’t expect a direct Military war with China. I do expect economic strangulation, that is what I mean by "encircling the USA". I don't doubt China would use their Military against weaker trading partners.

I agree China will falter. The question is how hard, how far will the reverberations be felt and how will they react. I see a lot of parallels to the market today and the status of globalisation in 1914.

my .02

[brownapple]

Ghuinness,

You know what really struck me about your post?

That the banks were able to figure out what a good investment was, and the IMF wasn't.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yes, FDI. You can't get trillions to build infrastructure through trade - takes too long and you need the infrastructure for the trade.

Clearly China does not meet IMF and WTO requirements, but that did not deter investors. Today, Bank of America announced it is considering a substantial investment in a large Chinese Bank in the range of $14B. This doesn't concern you?
And you think you know something they don't. No, it doesn't concern me, it makes me wish I had money to invest.

I am not looking for the “boogeyman” as you put it.
Yes, you are. Read your posts in this thread again and tell me you're not with a straight face. Again, what do you want done about China? You have listed all your fears, what do you want us to do to/about/on/at them?

You honestly think any one country can economically strangle the US?

I agree China will falter. The question is how hard, how far will the reverberations be felt and how will they react. I see a lot of parallels to the market today and the status of globalisation in 1914.
Interesting that you say that. What was our response in 1914 and what was the result? Even a little before that.

[Airbornelawyer]

I thought we agreed

but I was wrong

:o

Abandon is a relative and subjective term with the US. There are many in LATAM that feel abandoned as well.
That's why I said "pales in comparison with the Middle East and East Asia" but "is behind Latam and Eastern Europe." All of these theaters are lagging as resources and attention go to the Middle East.

Obviously, these things fluctuate over time. Central Europe was the main theater for decades, with Latin America, the Middle East and East Asia peripheral, and then only in the context of the long twilight struggle with Soviet Communism. And, of course, before 1941 or so, we cared little about anywhere but Latin America and the Caribbean.

Right now, for obvious reasons, the focus is on the Middle East and East Asia. Resources are being diverted from Europe (that 1-year mission in Bosnia is finally effectively over) and Latin America (to the extent there were many resources there in the first place).

For Latam, in the long-term this represents a geopolitical shift. Since the 1970s, most of the region has shifted to relatively stable democracies, albeit with problems. Cuba is now the only unfree state in the Western Hemisphere, though Venezuela's future is in question. We remain concerned about Colombia and narco-trafficking/terrorism links there and elsewhere in the region. A Chavez-Castro alliance is worrying, but fears of a new left alliance of Lula!'s Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba and Zapatero's Spain seem to have abated. I don't think anyone thinks Brazil will be a military threat to the United States.

You want a metric? (probably not, but here goes :rolleyes: )

Total US Foreign Military Financing in 2004 was about $4.6 billion. For 2005 it is estimated to be $4.7 billion and the Administration has requested $4.6 billion for 2006. Looking at 2004, by region:

Africa: $20.9 million
East Asia and the Pacific: $24.7 million
Europe and Eurasia: $191.0 million
Near East: $3,728.6 million
South Asia: $494.7 million
Western Hemisphere: $119.6 million

Africa certainly gets the short end of that stick. East Asia and the Pacific is low because most of the states in the region pay for their own defense. The Near East dominates, but that is because almost 75% of FMF went to two countries, Israel (46.5%) and Egypt (28.0%), while Jordan accounted for 4.4%.

Six countries - Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, Jordan, Colombia and Pakistan - together accounted for 91.5% of 2004 FMF. Add in Turkey, Poland, Oman, Bahrain, the Philippines, Bosnia, Yemen and Georgia, the only others over $10 million, and you pass 95%.

The estimates for 2005 show some differences. Every region but the Western Hemisphere went up, though Colombian FMF remains about the same. The Philippines got an extra $10 million, but Bosnia went down by that amount. Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Afghanistan remained about the same, while Pakistan, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen got less and Morocco got more.

The request for 2006 also show differences, and Administration priorities. For the Western Hemisphere, the focus remains on Colombia and counternarcotics/counterterrorism. El Salvador's request jumps considerably, mainly due to costs of its Iraq deployment (and as a reward for staying the course when other Central American states bailed). Homeland security gets a boost, as Mexico goes from $0 to $2.5 million and Operation Enduring Friendship, an initiative aimed at improving border security and maritime interdiction capabilities in the Caribbean and Central America, gets $5 million.

The Near East stays the same, while in South Asia a jump in Pakistan's FMF is offset by the elimination of Afghanistan's. Africa, East Asia and the Pacific and Europe lose money. In Europe, Poland and Turkey get less, but coalition partners Bulgaria and Romania get much more. Ukraine was slated for a big jump, but since it decided to withdraw from Iraq this may go down.

FMF, of course, is only part of a bigger picture. Some countries, like Japan and South Korea, don't get FMF because they can pay for their own weapons, or they often get significant assistance in the form of EDA (excess defense articles), or US hand-me-downs.

Every country in Latin America is eligible for EDA. For example, in 2001, we gave Brazil 91 M60A3 main battle tanks, 4 frigates and 2 LSDs. In 1998-99, Argentina got a brigade's worth of small arms and equipment (57 M113A2s, 25 M106A2 mortar carriers, 20 M577A2 CP carriers, 25 M578 ARVs, 1945 M16A2s, 349 M249 SAWs, 245 M203s, 1600 LAWs, 71 1 1/4-ton trucks, etc.).

In 1999, the Peruvian Navy received 4 LSTs.

In 2003, we offered Mexico 70,000 cans of paint.

We have given Poland two frigates, the USS Clark in 2000 and the USS Wadsworth in 2002.

EDA doesn't just go to poorer countries, but to anyone eligible. We gave Germany, for example, 7.7 million rounds of 7.62x51mm in 1997, along with 55,664 hand grenades, 896 antitank mines, about 120,000 20mm rounds, and 7 shotguns. France received 2 KC-135 tankers in 1995.

And sometimes the country rejects the hand-me-downs. Mexico returned some 70 helicopters in 1999 as inoperable. Turkey rejected 50 A-10s in 1993, along with 15 of 27 AH-1 Cobras.

Turkey is probably one of the biggest EDA recipients, though, along with Greece, Egypt, Israel and Taiwan.

Another area of US military assistance, IMET, is more favorable to Latin America. For 2004, the Western Hemisphere received $13.4 million of the $91.2 million allocated to IMET, but 5,021 of the 11,832 students trained were from the Western Hemisphere, mainly Bolivia, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras. Africa was funded to $11.2 million and 1,683 Africans were trained, mainly from Zambia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. The biggest chunk, $35.5 million, went to Europe, where 3,149 soldiers were trained. The biggest groups were from Romania, Ukraine, Bosnia, Turkey, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

The relationship between money and numbers of students changes, though, depending on the standard of living of the country, the types of students trained and the types of training. Sending a dozen Ugandan sergeants to ANCOC probably costs less than sending one Russian colonel to a war college. Also, I don't think SOA (or whatever it's called now) is funded through IMET.

EDA, by the way, is something where we have a definite edge over China. Since our standard weapons are in many cases two generations ahead of China's (or Russia's for that matter), our hand-me-downs are often better than or as good as their sale items, and certainly better than their hand-me-downs. We give away M60A3s, they give away T-55/Type-59s. We give away F/A-18s, they give away MiG-21s.

[ghuinness]

Interesting that you say that. What was our response in 1914 and what was the result? Even a little before that.

I didn't forget and not ignoring the earlier questions, I will come back to them later.

Had to double check this one, you phrased your question for a specific
reason and intent. That was obvious.

I think what you are referring to is:
1) the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct 1913.
2) the assassination of Ferdinand which resulted in the dash for cash in July 1914. The markets remained closed through the end of the year
3) The US response to war was to remain neutral and the same day the US signed a Treaty with Nicaragua giving Americans the right to build a canal. Cost $3,000,000. Dollar Diplomacy. Policy proposes to substitute dollars for bullets.

Is this your frequency?

[ghuinness]

Stumbled across this op-ed: Sinking Globalization (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/FA-3_30_05_NF.html)

Also interesting to read "Europe's Last Summer" by David Fromkin.

[Surf n Turf]

I thought this thread was one of the best I have ever read –

This Tuesday, I happened to see Charlie Rose (PBS) doing an interview with Tom Friedman on Globalization ---Friedman was promoting his new book – The World is Flat ---- Most of the talking points from the interview were covered in this thread – but Friedman did hit hard on one point --- War is less likely with a country when their economic interests become at risk, and with Globalization, more countries (i.e. India / China specifically) have a vested financial interest in maintaining a “peaceful marketplace.” Friedman maintains that the India / Pakistan crisis was tampered down by the technocrats who feared losing business, and forced the politicians to a reasonable settlement. He also maintains that China, which receives billions in revenue from the “Global supply chain”, is less apt to start regional problems if it interrupts – even temporarily—commerce !! It seems that capitalism may be more powerful than WMD

************************************************** *

The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
by Thomas L. Friedman

Product Description from Amazon
When scholars write the history of the world twenty years from now, and they come to the chapter "Y2K to March 2004," what will they say was the most crucial development? The attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11 and the Iraq war? Or the convergence of technology and events that allowed India, China, and so many other countries to become part of the global supply chain for services and manufacturing, creating an explosion of wealth in the middle classes of the world's two biggest nations, giving them a huge new stake in the success of globalization? And with this "flattening" of the globe, which requires us to run faster in order to stay in place, has the world gotten too small and too fast for human beings and their political systems to adjust in a stable manner?

----- With his inimitable ability to translate complex foreign policy and economic issues, Friedman explains how the flattening of the world happened at the dawn of the twenty-first century; what it means to countries, companies, communities, and individuals; and how governments and societies can, and must, adapt. The World Is Flat is the timely and essential update on globalization, its successes and discontents, powerfully illuminated by one of our most respected journalists.

Amazon Customer Review --
----- Friedman not only writes well, but does so on an important subject- globalization. "It is now possible for more people than ever to collaborate and compete in real time with more people on more different kinds of work from more different corners of the planet and on a more equal footing than at any previous time in the history of the world."

He claims, "When the world is flat, you can innovate without having to emigrate". But, how did the world `become flat'? Friedman suggest the trigger events were the collapse of communism, the dot-com bubble resulting in overinvestment in fiber-optic telecommunications, and the subsequent out-sourcing of engineers enlisted to fix the perceived Y2K problem.

Those events created an environment where products, services, and labor are cheaper. However, the West is now losing its strong-hold on economic dominance. Depending on if viewed from the eyes of a consumer or a producer - that's either good or bad, or a combination of both.

What is more sobering is Friedman's elaboration on Bill Gates' statement, "When I compare our high schools to what I see when I'm traveling abroad, I am terrified for our work force of tomorrow. In math and science, our fourth graders are among the top students in the world. By eighth grade, they're in the middle of the pack. By 12th grade, U.S. students are scoring near the bottom of all industrialized nations. . . . The percentage of a population with a college degree is important, but so are sheer numbers. In 2001, India graduated almost a million more students from college than the United States did. China graduates twice as many students with bachelor's degrees as the U.S., and they have six times as many graduates majoring in engineering. In the international competition to have the biggest and best supply of knowledge workers, America is falling behind."

Friedman sounds the alarm with a call for diligence and fortitude - academically, politically, and economically. He sees a dangerous complacency, from Washington down through the public school system. Students are no longer motivated. "In China today, Bill Gates is Britney Spears. In America today, Britney Spears is Britney Spears -- and that is our problem."

Customer Reviewer ---Questions I wish Friedman had explored in further detail are:

1. When should countries do what benefits the global economy, and when should they look out for their own interests? (protectionism, tariffs, quotas, etc.)
2. What will a `flat world' mean to the world's poor? (those living in Haiti, Angola, Kazakhstan, etc.)
3. What cultural values (or absence thereof) are contributing to the West's loss of productivity, education, and excellence? (morality, truth, religion, meaning, hope?)
4. How will further globalization effect cultural distinctions? (Are we heading towards a universal melting pot?)
5. What will a `flat world' mean environmentally - particularly for those countries on the verge of an economic explosion? -----

************************************************** ***
Thought some might find his book interesting – I ordered my copy today

SnT

[Martin]

USA Today - Myths of globalization (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-05-22-oplede_x.htm)
By Ralph Peters
Posted 5/22/2005 8:15 PM

[dennisw]

I like Friedman. I've watch a couple of his documentaries on the discovery channel which were really good, and I almost bought his book on Sunday. However:

War is less likely with a country when their economic interests become at risk, and with Globalization, more countries (i.e. India / China specifically) have a vested financial interest in maintaining a “peaceful marketplace.”

Does he base this on historical example or condition or is he just theorizing? Sometimes folks don't act the way we think they will.

Just a side note, one of his specials dealt with interviewing American students in France. The subject was how are Americans treated in France. He also interviewed some French students who were not favorably disposed towards Americans. It was funny because they bitched about Americans beleiving that we are the liberators of the World. He said, "What if we didn't liberate you from the Germans?" The look on their faces was priceless.

How soon we forget.

[Martin]

China: Containment Won't Work (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/12/AR2005061201533_pf.html)
By Henry A. Kissinger in the Washington Post
Monday, June 13, 2005; A19

[Martin]

Please see link in above post instead.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Have you guys seen the poverty statistics for China?

[jatx]

Have you guys seen the poverty statistics for China?

Looking for some or have some to share? :munchin

[The Reaper]

Have you guys seen the poverty statistics for China?

Does anyone remember about 20 years ago when we were afraid that the Japanese were going to buy up the US and become our masters?

TR

[lksteve]

Does anyone remember about 20 years ago when we were afraid that the Japanese were going to buy up the US and become our masters?
not as well as i do thirty or so years ago when the Saudis were going to buy up everything and become our masters...

[jatx]

Does anyone remember about 20 years ago when we were afraid that the Japanese were going to buy up the US and become our masters?

TR

Yes, and I misspent several years of my youth studying Japanese in response! Not falling for that one again... :D

[CoLawman]

Yes, and I misspent several years of my youth studying Japanese in response! Not falling for that one again... :D

That was a well needed laugh after reading the preceding posts on this thread. Thank-you! That was very therapeutic!

[Martin]

Then there's another school of thought that says the march of globalization has eroded the Fed's influence over long-term rates.

"Globally, the U.S. and some emerging markets are the leading growth engines," said John Herrmann, director of economic commentary at Cantor Fitzgerald, one of the world's top Treasury bond brokers.

And with growth slow in Europe and Asia, and rates relatively low worldwide, Treasuries have become unusually attractive for overseas investors -- for yield as well as perceived safety.

So the stronger the U.S. economy becomes relative to Europe and Japan, the lower long-term bond yields could fall as foreign banks keep snapping up Treasuries, analysts said.

Underscoring this point: foreign banks now own far more Treasury securities than the Fed, at about $1.1 trillion versus $738 billion for the central bank, according to Grant's Interest Rate Observer.

As the current state of affairs persists, the link between low long-term yields, a yield curve inversion and a possible recession becomes less clear.

"We buy foreign-made goods that are inexpensive and those countries plug our deficit by buying U.S. securities," PIMCO's Rodosky said. "Everyone playing that game wants to perpetuate that cycle because it is benefiting them."
I think that competition through globalization is a good thing and is not a reason for overly protective measures, although I don't see anything wrong with favoring your own country in certain aspects.

What I think brings China into a murky light is its strategic positioning and posturing, in parallell to the rabid anti-Americanism reported from the country.

I don't believe in playing fair, but that doesn't mean that we should lay down on our backs. If China doesn't float their currency, through a careful transition, and does not allow foreigners to own parts of Chinese companies - there is no reason why we (um, you...) shouldn't use US economic muscle to create a good economic environment.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a link between market opening and desire for freedom of information. Please correct and explain to me why that is wrong, if it is.

If China would open up, I wouldn't be equally worried about the current political status of the country. Which is also why I don't think we should be as much afraid of the country today, as we should be concerned about in which direction it's moving. And I am concerned.

If someone can explain why the analogy with Japan is correct, please speak up. It seems more complicated than quick reminiscing.

[Martin]

Have you guys seen the poverty statistics for China?
Couldn't that mean that they might be able to sustain an industry base next to their high tech, high income regions?

(I'm not claiming this as definitive, it is a pondering thought I think might be correct)

[brownapple]

I think that competition through globalization is a good thing .


Not really aimed at you, Martin, but this part of your post caught my eye.

I don't think it matters if people think globalization is a good thing or a bad thing.

The fact is that it is happening, and it isn't going to be stopped, reversed, etc.

Either cope with it or not, but the people who cope with it are going to do a lot better than the people who don't.

[NousDefionsDoc]

That's all I'm saying...

[lrd]

Not really aimed at you, Martin, but this part of your post caught my eye.

I don't think it matters if people think globalization is a good thing or a bad thing.

The fact is that it is happening, and it isn't going to be stopped, reversed, etc.

Either cope with it or not, but the people who cope with it are going to do a lot better than the people who don't.Your last sentence makes me want to repeat your first sentence to Martin, GH.

I would feel much more comfortable about globilization if I felt like we had a plan and were guiding instead of coping. I keep wondering who is driving the globalization train...

[Martin]

Your last sentence makes me want to repeat your first sentence to Martin, GH.

I would feel much more comfortable about globilization if I felt like we had a plan and were guiding instead of coping. I keep wondering who is driving the globalization train...
That is what I'm suggesting too.

A globalized world can function in different fashions, with not one specific that holds all trumph cards. What we need to do is transform institutions, principles and policies to match the direction we want it to move in.

I think what is driving, perhaps what is, globalization, is communication. It won't stop, but those doing the talking will set the tone and affect culture with their taboos, etc.

I almost agree with you, GH, but I think that in this view it does matter if people think globalization is a good thing. If our fellow westerners don't compete, our culture will be dominated by those who do.

[brownapple]

Your last sentence makes me want to repeat your first sentence to Martin, GH.

I would feel much more comfortable about globilization if I felt like we had a plan and were guiding instead of coping. I keep wondering who is driving the globalization train...


The "invisible hand"... which has always done a hell of a lot better than any government.

[Roguish Lawyer]

The "invisible hand"... which has always done a hell of a lot better than any government.

Exactly.

[Roguish Lawyer]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/21/news/international/china_yuan/index.htm?cnn=yes

China revalues yuan

Move away from fixed dollar peg could lessen competition for U.S. firms, raise import prices.
July 21, 2005: 10:44 AM EDT
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - In a move that could trim the trade gap with the United States, China revalued its currency higher against the dollar Thursday and said it would no longer have the yuan tied to a fixed rate against the U.S. currency.

The move, while small at this point, could be the first step to reduce competition for some U.S. companies from lower-priced Chinese imports.

A stronger yuan could also increase the sales U.S. exporters get from business with the world's largest country, one of the fastest growing consumer markets. U.S. exporters could keep their prices the same in U.S. dollars, thus lowering the price in yuan and spurring increased sales. Or they could keep prices in yuan level, and bring in a greater amount of dollars.

Reuters reported that U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow praised the move in a meeting with reporters Thursday morning. Both the administration and members of Congress have been calling on China to end its fixed dollar-yuan peg. There is legislation before Congress that threatens trade sanctions on China if the yuan did not start trading freely in currency markets.

"This is a good first step, albeit a baby step," said a statement for U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the authors of the legislation. "It is smaller than we had hoped, but to paraphrase the Chinese philosophers, a trip of a thousand miles can well begin with the first baby step. If there are not larger steps in the future, we will not have accomplished very much. But after years of inaction, this step is welcome."

On the downside for American citizens, it could lead to increased prices for Chinese-made goods such as apparel and electronics. But economists doubt that with a change in valuation as small as Thursday's move that prices will increase.

"The change is pretty slight but very significant because of the fact that they did allow it to revalue. Now speculation is that this will pave the way for further valuations down the road," said Ezechiel Copic, currency analyst for MG Financial Group.

The fixed rate between the yuan and the dollar has been blamed for the soaring trade gap between China and the United States, as it kept Chinese-made goods cheap here.

The trade gap between the United States and China was $72.5 billion the first five months of this year, by far the largest gap of with any trading partner. It was more than the U.S. gap with Japan and OPEC combined during the same period.

Jay Bryson, global economist for Wachovia Securities, said that there is still more unknown than known about the way the new valuation system will work. He doesn't expect it to cause an immediate impact on the economics of that trade, but he said it opens the door to further strengthening of the yuan.

"Will the yuan be 30 percent stronger vs. the dollar a year from now? I doubt that. Could it be 10 percent stronger? Yeah, that's reasonable," he said. "It will help somewhat people who compete against Chinese exporters. It doesn't mean textile jobs will come back to North Carolina, those jobs are gone. But it might help a manufacturer who is still here."

U.S. stock futures soared immediately after the statement from People's Bank of China just after 7 a.m. ET Thursday. But an hour later much of those gains had evaporated after traders had a chance to examine and weigh the statement.

The statement said China will immediately value the currency at 8.11 yuan, down 2 percent from the 8.28 rate previously. It also said it will now peg the yuan against a "market basket" of numerous currencies, although it will keep the yuan in a tight band rather than letting it trade freely. But the central bank did promise that the exchange rate band would be adjusted when necessary according to market developments as well as economic and financial situations.

Reuters quoted another statement from the bank as saying any sharp swing in the yuan's exchange rate would hit China's financial system, and therefore would not be in Beijing's interest.

The U.S. Congress had been threatening to impose stiff trade sanctions on Chinese imports if it did not allow more market-based valuation of the yuan. The move by the Chinese reduces the threat of that kind of trade war, which is one of the factors that likely lifted futures early, said Bryson.

"Obviously they're getting a lot of flak from Congress and the Europeans as well. It was going to happen at some point anyway. It probably happened sooner than it would have if Congress and the administration hadn't said anything," said Bryson.

But University of Maryland Professor Peter Morici, a vocal critic of the Chinese government's policy on currency, said this move doesn't suggest any significant change in the economics of trade is on the horizon.

"This is a fig leaf. It's an attempt by the Chinese to do the least amount possible," said Morici, who estimated that the yuan is about 40 percent undervalued because of the trading restrictions.

"Even a pace of 10 percent change a year will get us there too slowly," he said. "(With this change) China will continue to have very large trade surpluses and cause damage to industries that compete with Chinese companies."

[Martin]

A little thought struck me a few days ago... While I think it is far from impossible that China could be a threat and in either case believe the US need to maintain a capable conventional force, and the ability to expand it... If the Pentagon and the U.S. government seriously consider China an emerging threat and use that to motivate funding of big ticket projects for countering a rising China - why are they closing down so many CONUS bases and why are they consolidating critical functions? Then the defense spending as part of GDP while at war, contractors... I hate to say it, but the situation does partly seem to be taken lightly.

Am I missing something?

Martin

[pegasus]

I have a question and this seemed an appropriate thread.

I admit, I haven't been following the trilateral agreement proposed in 2005 very closely: The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. (SPP (http://www.spp.gov/). This NAFTA Super Highway will start construction this year. NASCO (http://www.nascocorridor.com/)

Dr Corsi (Co-auther with Swift Boat Vets) is very strongly against this proposal. I won't post his website.

I was wondering if anyone on this site has been following this proposal and has an opinion?

thanks

[tk27]

"NAFTA Super Highway" is a misnomer, all the roads already exists, I35, I29, and I94. This is an infrastructure improvement project, mostly to improve roads in the middle of the country, but also to improve Detroit-Canada connections. Also Alberta, particularly Calgary area is booming right now due to the tar sands investment, so a lot of and material will be flowing in. Hence the I94 improvements.

What are your concerns about it?