hondaicivic

China's big natural-resources moves into Latin America aren't just a challenge for America - they're also an opportunity, but only if the U.S. realizes it can play the other two parts of this economic triangle against each other.

I was about to say that. HAHAHA David I needed a good laugh tonight, and you just made it happened.


On Aug 25 12:12 AM rick flair wrote:

> sure david

Economic Growth Differences: Democratic vs. Non-Democratic Countries

"This is because Singapore is a democracy while Jordan is not".....

^You do know that Singapore is a one-party state right? The PAP is the ruler of singapore since its independence. The political system in Singapore is similar to China, only more efficient. By the way, have you been to Singapore?....

China's Demand Makes Old Signposts Useless

"PRC propaganda literature"......I think you need to stop watching FOX news and CNN and actually look at history from a different angle, not the crap they feed you from the mainstream media and teach you in elementary-high school level. And here you're talking about propaganda, you gotta be kidding me. That little brief introduction of history in the Pacific you gave me earlier show me how much you know about history. But then again.......you are a patriot of the United States of America.


On Aug 10 04:55 PM Ricard wrote:

> I think you have saved enough time and energy and should invest it
> in reading about your own history, not PRC propaganda literature.
>
>
> On Aug 10 03:55 PM hondaicivic wrote:

China's Demand Makes Old Signposts Useless

You could have saved me the time and energy and wrote something like this instead of trying to write a novel.


On Aug 10 01:00 PM Ricard wrote:

> I could have replaced my long ramblings with this one short comment:
>
>
>
> "Then tell me why the US lost the Vietnam war, and soon to be Iraq
>
> and Afghanistan? "
>
> "By the way, when I mention war I never said anything about military.
> This is the 21st century buddy, economics is the choice of weapon,
> not military."
>
>
> You bring up military conflicts, and then posit that the military
> is not a factor.
>
> Art of War, Chapter 3 -
>
> "One who knows neither the enemy nor himself will invariably be defeated
> in every engagement."

China's Demand Makes Old Signposts Useless

Then tell me why the US lost the Vietnam war, and soon to be Iraq and Afghanistan? By the way, when I mention war I never said anything about military. This is the 21st century buddy, economics is the choice of weapon, not military. Are you positive you read The Art of War many times like you said? If you did, you understand that military is the least emphasized. "Unrestricted Warfare" which was published in 1999 by two PLA colonels basically reiterates what I just said. Look it up.


On Aug 10 02:25 AM Ricard wrote:

> Your logic is hubric to the extreme. Right now, the US has the most
> dominant military in the world, and can put up a damned good fight
> against all other forces COMBINED (nukes not withstanding). Indeed,
> it IS the military force for many of the most advanced countries
> in the world (Germany, Japan, South Korea, to name a few, one could
> also easily make the argument that it is the UN's and NATO's real
> military arm). To think China has a chance, head on, against the
> US is a total leap into a Boxer Rebellion-style tai-chi mentality
> where bullets just don't matter against 'the force'.
>
> I am not considering whether or not allies such as Russia would get
> involved. All I am saying is that if China wanted to pick a fight
> against the US, they're 10 steps behind, and are crippled from the
> start. It would be an embarrassment, and it would be painfully short.
>
>
> I have read the Art of War many times, and easily see that China
> is buying time and is not making any overt overtures to provoke other
> powers...it will easily become the next Germany as far as theater
> politics are concerned, and will be more of a match for the incumbents
> Russia and England (replace with America) if given enough time...
>
>
> This is common knowledge - I am not stating anything new. This is
> why the rhetoric is so shrill in America, even though by nearly all
> standards the Chinese are copying America's rise to prominence in
> the turn of the last century, and even though the Chinese population
> as a whole, although ambivalent, have the highest regard for Americans.
> Imitation is the greatest form of flattery, unless it involves usurping
> the hegemon.

China's Demand Makes Old Signposts Useless

You idiot, I did spell it right. "Sun Zi" is the correct pronounciation using the Hanyu Pingyin, you dumbass. The "Sun Tzu" spelling is used in Taiwan, not in Mainland China. What do you want me to cite? Name a chapter or line. Until then.....shut the hell up.


On Aug 09 11:53 PM speeddaimon wrote:

> For god's sake, if you're going to attempt to sound smart and cite
> a book in a comment, at least spell the fucking author's name correctly.
> Its Sun Tzu. Jesus, its one of the most referenced books in history,
> and you're not even close. Next time, why don't you cite a book you're
> more familiar with, like "Big Bird Teaches Economics".

China's Demand Makes Old Signposts Useless

I guess you've never read the Art of War by Sun Zi and "Unrestricted Warfare". Trust me, the Chinese are way ahead of the US when it comes to war.......


On Aug 09 11:44 AM Ricard wrote:

> Maybe they are reacting to provocation. If China's preparing for
> a war, it's about 10 steps behind us in the game. Whether it be
> Taiwan and our 5th Fleet, Tibet and the CIA, North Korea, or now
> Xinjiang, more than likely we will 'step in' the moment there are
> signs of eminent collapse.
>
> Given that we also own a virtual monopoly over global media, it is
> no surprise that there is such strict repression of the media in
> that country. All pawns in the game...

China Should Be a Manufacturing Giant

Have you been to Singapore?......


On Aug 04 01:39 PM Tony Petroski wrote:

> Adam Smith worried that the success of capitalism would undermine
> it. That people, once fat and happy, would not work for as much
> stuff anymore thus undermining the wealth creator that made them
> fat and happy in the first place.
>
> Experience has shown that Adam Smith needn't have worried. People
> will seek out work to do and they will continue to make stuff. The
> more significant problem for dictatorships is how to make the transition
> from one-party hell hole to the free market governed by free people.
> The Japanese and the Germans had to make that transition under American
> supervision. The Russians haven't made the transition. The challenge
> for the Chinese will be to create a political justification for why
> some well-connected cronies get to rule the country and get rich
> while a rising middle class gets tired of living by bread alone and
> demands political rights. Until they make that transition, they
> will be vulnerable and their potentially dominant role in the world
> will have to wait.

Shift in U.S. - China Dialogue Is Louder than Words

"When the ants leave the anthill, you may come to appreciate the American military, a force subsidized with American blood. "

........AND the blood of the people of the countries that America have waged war against/colonized. (i.e. Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, Latin America). I'm sure you haven't forgotten your history....


On Jul 29 06:50 PM Tony Petroski wrote:

> From the author: "I would suggest that even U.S. officials have
> realized the ludicrous hypocrisy of continuing to criticize China."
>
>
> What U.S. official dares to criticize China? Geithner made some
> meally-mouthed comment a few months ago about the Chinese manipulating
> their currency (about as controversial as pointing out that the Russians
> love vodka) and he was promptly shut up. Obama would apologize for
> past American transgressions except that even he can't come up with
> any.
>
> When the ants leave the anthill, you may come to appreciate the American
> military, a force subsidized with American blood.

How Much Leverage Does China Have?

How much leverage does China have on the US?...............Peter, they own the United States, so it's wise that the Obama administration cooperate with China, not the other way around.

"Essentially, it must hold those dollars or put them into Treasuries and other U.S. debt instruments. If it had other options, it would already be using them."

- You do know that they're using the those dollar denominated assets to buy commodities and natural resources around the world right now? They've been on a recent shopping spree lately, have you noticed that? They're stockpiling copper, oil, and gold to diversified themselves out of dollar denominated FX.

Why China's Stimulus Is Better than Ours

"Our way of life".........Oh you mean how your country go around the world invading other countries and using "spreading democracy" as an excuse to steal other countries natural resource. You mean how eating burger and fries and knowing only one language because you think the whole world revolves around you. You mean how you supplied billions of dollars of weapons to Israel so they can kill innocent palestinians/arabs? You mean how your country has over 1000 military bases in over 130 different countries around the world, hmm does that sound like Imperialism? While China doesn't have any bases at all in any country.


On Jul 23 10:44 AM pallas headache wrote:

> Also not mentioned in the article is the fact that China's brand
> of stimulus was not put to a vote in the US congress. It's fearless
> leader's don't take counsel of it's people but dictate policy without
> fear of dissent. If it's people disagree they are subject to being
> run over by tanks in the public square without remorse or second
> guess. I am disgusted by US pundits continually singing the praises
> of this truly brutal, truly communist thug regime while tacitly condemning
> our way of life and governance. The young men who died fighting
> the Chinese communists in Korea for freedom and democracy must be
> rolling in their graves.

Unimpressed with China’s High Reserve and GDP Growth Numbers

Hey Michael. I just saw you on CNN!

China's Migrant 'Floating Population'

"Put another way, they have no long-term plan for the country."....

- I think you're confusing China with the USA. Long-term planning in the USA is about 1 week while long-term planning in China ranges from 50-100 years. Trust me, when it comes to long-term planning the Chinese are definitely experts. They didn't cook up their plan to destroy the US manufacturing base 30 years ago when they started opening up all for nothing. Am I right?


On Jul 09 11:55 PM Tom Lindmark wrote:

> An interesting take on the social inequality issue. If I read you
> correctly the regime's focus is a short-term maximization of returns
> to the favored and the devil take the hindmost. Put another way,
> they have no long-term plan for the country.
>
> Am I overstating your case?

China Counterattacks With a 'Buy China' Policy

Sober Realist, are you really that dumb and naive? Do you really think Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are democractic? Democracy in those countries/regions are about as fake as Brittney Spear's boobs. You should try living in those places for a couple of years and see if they're really a "democratic" places like you think they are. Look up Chaebol or MITI on wikipedia to see what I'm talking about, or trying to figure out why the LDP party in Japan has been in power for the past 50 years.


On Jun 19 11:13 AM Sober Realist wrote:

> The US was wrong when it thought that capitalist markets would help
> to democratize China as it successfully did in Japan, South Korea,
> and Taiwan. In order to preserve its monopoly of power, the CCP has
> co-opted the urban middle class which has benefited from China's
> rapid economic growth. US businesses sold its soul for profits, cutting
> manufacturing jobs in the US and exporting them to China for cheap
> labor and high profits. And now the West is surprised how business
> conduct is dictated in China. Protectionism in China is nothing new;
> it has a long track record of using unreasonable regulatory and technology
> standards to block foreign access to its markets.
> www.nytimes.com/2009/0...

Soaring Retail Sales in China Demonstrate Economic Shift

"Public discourse is heavily manipulated through censorship and active agenda-setting"

- How is it different from Uncle Sam and the rest of the Western world? Have you tried watching CNN, FOX, CNBC, and BBC? And you want to talk about manipulation and censorship........Please

"With the Great Firewall filtering out politically incorrect posts, or the Internet police and cooperating ISPs doing so manually, "

- Yea the US partake in that too. Why do you think the Patriot Act was passed for? They didn't setup the NSA and CIA for no reason. They worked 24/7, 365 days. No vacation, no break. Guess what's their main job is?..........

On Jun 16 06:24 PM Sober Realist wrote:

> Jeff,
> You didn't give any hard numbers or statistics to back up your claim
> of equitable wealth distribution under China's one-party dictatorship.
> Call it what it is -- a "communist dactatorship."
> "In absolute numbers, China's middle class is estimated to stand
> anywhere between 25 and 150 million, depending on the methodology
> and criteria consulted. The size of the underclass is less disputed:
> according to the World Bank, in 2005 there were 204 million people
> in China living on less than 1.25 US dollar a day. If we add the
> 130 million migrant workers who are above poverty line but significantly
> below the middle class levels, it represents a considerable pool
> of social discontent. Already in late 1978, when China first embarked
> on market reforms, urban disposable incomes were 2.6 times higher
> than rural net income; by 2006 this figure had risen to 3.3. Most
> of these "losers" live in the countryside, or between the countryside
> and the cities. The "winners" from among the emerging middle class
> are almost all city-dwellers and belong to the one-party rule."<br/>"They...
> middle class of China) have become the government's main ally in
> manufacturing the new patriotic consensus that rationalizes one-party
> rule, and provides the ideological basis for consent with the authoritarian
> system. According to this new middle-class nationalist narrative,
> which has replaced traditional communist ideology, China needs the
> Communist Party's uncontested and unchallenged rule to protect it
> against plots by a hostile West seeking to contain China and block
> her economic and geopolitical ascendancy by whatever means available.
> Criticism of China's human rights record is just one such evil ploy
> to derail China's progress. So is the promotion of democracy, which
> would only threaten China's unity and make her weaker, an easy prey
> for western "hegemonism".
> It is not clear how many people really subscribe to this simplistic
> worldview. Public discourse is heavily manipulated through censorship
> and active agenda-setting, which the authorities choose to call "public
> opinion guidance" (yulun daoxiang). In the seemingly more open debate
> on the Internet, many among the cacophony of voices tend to support
> this "patriotic consensus", but one needs to keep in mind that postings
> on the Chinese Internet may not always be what they seem. The party-state
> employs legions of so-called "Internet commentators", popularly known
> as the "Fifty-cent Party" or Wu mao dang because of the wage they
> are believed to collect per post, who are paid to sway online discussions
> in a desired way. With the Great Firewall filtering out politically
> incorrect posts, or the Internet police and cooperating ISPs doing
> so manually, all that remains is the Wu mao dang, which tends to
> give a distorted view of what the real balance of opinion might be.
>
>