World War III: U.S. vs. China? 37 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
It took the onset of World War II to lift the world out of the Great Depression that began in 1929.
Ignore the historical hyperbole that claim Roosevelt’s “New Deal” had anything to do with it. It was war, plain and simple, that galvanized the U.S. manufacturing complex into debt-driven growth, and ended the period of stagnation following the economic contraction from 1929 to 34.
Bernanke’s theory is that the depression would have been averted had the Federal Reserve acted decisively and boosted liquidity - a theory he is now testing. At that time, the Fed was limited to how much liquidity it could inject by the fact that the available money supply had to be connected (at least partially) to the available gold on hand in U.S. reserves.
But scholars (to use the term loosely) agree – the advent of war was the end of the depression. War has since been recognized as good economic policy, and many U.S. administrations have embraced it as fundamental foreign policy.
I recently had a conversation with a senior Chinese government official who assured me that the Chinese observed the regime change machinations of the Bush administration with interest. He suggested that the precedents set by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and myriad other coups overt and covert have thoroughly established the expectation among democratic citizens that forcible regime change of irresponsible governments is an acceptable tool in the democratic arsenal.
That the United States deploys this tool indiscriminately does not pass un-noticed. To the Chinese strategic thinkers, it acts to condone future regime change strategies lurking within the long range plans of expansion-minded countries whose resources may be reaching critical shortages due to excessive population.
Notice that virtually no criticism was leveled by China against Bush’s contrived Weapons of Mass Destruction fallacy, and no interference with the subsequent attack on Saddam Hussein’s fiefdom was seen.
An interesting tidbit in the news over the last 24 hours demonstrates just how easily the pre-text for war can be manufactured.
Five Chinese vessels maneuvered dangerously close to a U. S. Navy ship in the South China Sea on Sunday, closing within eight metres of the unarmed surveillance ship, the Pentagon said.
"This was a reckless, dangerous maneuver that was unprofessional" and violated international law, said Defence Department spokesman Bryan Whitman. The United States protested to Chinese authorities in Beijing and to the defense attaché in Washington over the incident, which occurred in the South China Sea, about 120 kilometers south of Hainan Island.
A Republican lawmaker called the standoff a critical "early test" for President Barack Obama just weeks before he meets Chinese President Hu Jintao in April.
Far from a provocative act of war, the unwillingness of both China and the U.S. to admit any sort of wrong-doing over the incident demonstrates the battle of wills that lurks just under the surface of U.S. – China relations.
According to the Pentagon, the targeting of the Impeccable came at the end of several days in which Chinese naval vessels had been stepping up their harassment in international waters.
The Pentagon insisted the Impeccable was engaged in "routine" and legal operations in international waters.
"The Chinese navy pursues peace and safeguards the security of the country," navy deputy chief of staff Major General Zhang Deshun told China Daily. On most levels, war between two of the planet’s superpowers is unthinkable. Since both are armed to the teeth with the most sophisticated of weaponry, it is difficult to envision a traditional war, where one side sends troops over to physically subdue the other side.
And any idea of a nuclear exchange is clearly self-defeating for obvious reasons. Chemical warfare ditto. Biological? Not in this century.
The third world war, which is, in fact, underway, is being fought economically, as evidenced by Timothy Geithner’s first verbal blunder as Treasury Secretary, where he accused the Chinese of “currency manipulation”, referring to the suppression of the rise of the Yuan against the U.S. Dollar.
Considering U.S. suppression of gold over three decades to create the illusion of a strong U.S. dollar, this is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. But that is an entirely different set of cats to skin.
The bottom line is the Chinese, who are the largest foreign holders of United States Treasury Bills, have been underwriting U.S. economic growth for decades, and now hold billions in foreign reserves of a currency being diluted into fractions of its former worth. This monetary hyper-inflation has, in theory, the net effect of devaluing the U.S. dollar denominated foreign reserve holdings in tandem of China and every other holder of Treasurys.
It's like two cowboys each holding a gun with trigger cocked at the other guy’s head, both of them yelling at the other guy to “drop the gun”. The likelihood of a civilized resolution to such a scenario is just about as unthinkable as a nuclear world war.
China deliberately uses manipulation to maintain an undervalued currency. The need to create jobs for the sake of “social stability” has led them to adopt “export led growth strategies” based on an undervalued currency.
This equates to subsidizing its exports and foreign direct investment, and is essentially a tax on China’s imports.
The United States, on the other hand, actively manipulates the value of the United States dollar through the illegal and destructive manipulation of gold and precious metals futures markets, where there is such an accumulation of short interest, that it is inconceivable to think that those contracts will ever be covered by real gold. This amounts to an artificial premium on the United States dollar relative to other currencies, and acts ultimately as a tax on imports.
So the two largest economies are employing similar tactics to achieve identical goals. Both are failing, and the consequence is a global financial system in which confidence has been destroyed, currencies are impossible to value, and the only thing of real value (precious metals and other commodities) are twisting in the wind waiting for somebody to win the third world war.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Those with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last week
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,
as ranked by their peers-
1
User 353732
-
2
Moon Kil Woong
-
3
doubleguns
-
4
optionsgirl
-
5
Mayascribe
Top Commenters » -
1
-
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
But one question. How the hell would the US Finance such an undertaking?
The other problem is that due to a complete abortion in the Foreign affairs field in recent years and because of split interests, the US would struggle to Britain on board as a ally (probably pay back time for Suez)let alone the rest of Europe. Russia and Japan would almost certainly side with China to protect their own interests, and the ever vital Middle East would be major stumbling block to the US strategic efforts.
-- Sun Tzu (400-320 BC)
They have been underwriting mainly their exports of Chinese-made products in the US. At the root, economic growth came from America's tech boom and other innovations. Superpowers don't go to war against one another. Little upside since neither will conquer the other, and huge downside. They wage war through proxies just like the Soviet and US did in the Cold War.
Political war, yes. American will be the loser, because we have a highly corrupted Congress - they are still steal money, the pork programs when we have trillion deficit. China have a one party system, but vry effective. Their corruptions are in the low level that are much easier to corrct.
Conventional war, no. We did not fight with Russia, and we are not stupid to fight Chinese. We cannot win for sure.
We're worried that some liberal arts educated individuals
home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/whitman59/w...
might not think out possible consequences carefully.
"It took the onset of World War II to lift the world out of the Great Depression that began in 1929."
This notion has been conclusively disproven by the brilliant Robert Higgs - you can read about it here:
www.independent.org/ne...
"ABSTRACT: Relying on standard measures of macroeconomic performance, historians and economists believe that “war prosperity” prevailed in the United States during World War II. This belief is ill-founded, because it does not recognize that the United States had a command economy during the war. From 1942 to 1946 some macroeconomic performance measures are statistically inaccurate; others are conceptually inappropriate. A better grounded interpretation is that during the war the economy was a huge arsenal in which the well-being of consumers deteriorated. After the war genuine prosperity returned for the first time since 1929."
And in case anyone still believes the nonsense about the 'benefits' of FDR's New Deal, Higgs has helpfully debunked this myth, as well:
www.independent.org/ne...
On Mar 12 04:44 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:
> Yes, thank God Bush is not in charge.
>
> But one question. How the hell would the US Finance such an undertaking?
>
>
> The other problem is that due to a complete abortion in the Foreign
> affairs field in recent years and because of split interests, the
> US would struggle to Britain on board as a ally (probably pay back
> time for Suez)let alone the rest of Europe. Russia and Japan would
> almost certainly side with China to protect their own interests,
> and the ever vital Middle East would be major stumbling block to
> the US strategic efforts.
if china makes it through their own troubles i would guess eventual war is a strong possibility. perhaps we will get lucky with internal problems for china. the people have had a small taste of freedom and the free market concept.
we had a president hand over intercontinental targeting capability soon after he accepted questionable campaign donations. trouble is at the apparent pressure from herald ickes, thompson allowed the treason impeachment hearings to be derailed to sexcapades with monica. wonder what ickes had on thompson. china is now a force to be reckoned with.
why the great wall was built at a great cost? Simple. China wanted to be left alone. For over a thousand years, China never invaded other countries. During that time period, china was invaded numerously times. The most recently ones: the military Japan and the drug lord of British.
Now,ask yourself what the US will do if china sends a spy ship within 75 miles off the coast of the USA to monitor the movement of nuclear submarine? A civilian ship may pass unharmly within 200 miles exclusive economic zone, but a military ship with the intention of spying is not a civilian without the intention of harming. If the US sits tight and does nothing to expel a spy ship, say from russia or china, then the US may claim it has the right to do the same. Last time I checked the US navy will expel any military ship within 200 miles without prior permission from the US navy.
Then you were not the commander of a US naval combat vessel when you checked.
What's the matter with you non-military types, Do you really believe the Hollywood stereotype about the military. I can speak for most military personal, enlisted and commissioned, and testify that we prefer peace much more than combat. The only caveat to that is that once a fight has started, it is our duty to go to the fight and win. Even if politicians, New York Media and Hollywood tie one hand behind our backs. Our burden is not only the battle, but the notion that we must win, "fair and square" in a "democratic way" in a short period of time, against an enemy that cheats, is totalitarian and has lots of time because it controls its own media.
On Mar 12 04:44 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:
> Yes, thank God Bush is not in charge.
>
> But one question. How the hell would the US Finance such an undertaking?
>
>
> The other problem is that due to a complete abortion in the Foreign
> affairs field in recent years and because of split interests, the
> US would struggle to Britain on board as a ally (probably pay back
> time for Suez)let alone the rest of Europe. Russia and Japan would
> almost certainly side with China to protect their own interests,
> and the ever vital Middle East would be major stumbling block to
> the US strategic efforts.
China will indeed lead the world into the next century while the United States with it's Congress comprised of thieves, liars, pimps,and two bit con men, will slowly sink in history as a sadly remembered "Camelot". We stand today with the most worthless government in the history of our great nation, kept in power by the most useless, unproductive, and uneducated generation ever to inhabit the planet.
Humanity is the same where ever you go.
The "Club" mentality is what makes them dangerous.
Remember the Khmer Rouge - "For The Good Of The Party".
Those that can get you to believe untruths can get you to commit atrocities.
Question Event And Suspect; Que Bono, Follow The Money.
To Assume Benevolence Is Foolish.
I would surmise that the Chinese are the same in this respect.
China has the largest army in the world and is basically uninvadeable by any other country. The United States will also never be physically invaded due to it's geographic isolation from other superpowers and the resulting logistic problems.
WWIII, when it occurs, will probably be fought between the West and the Muslim world. The Far East would likely make every attempt to remain nuetral. The west would win that war due to vastly superior technology but they would be weakened to the point that China would emerge as the only true super power. This assumes little or no use of nuclear weapons, otherwise there will be NO winners, and very few survivors.