Languish.org

An article tailor made for our anti-China lobby.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/225627

QuoteWhy China Won't Rule the World

By Minxin Pei | NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 8, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Dec 7, 2009

Conventional wisdom can be devilishly hard to dispute. For example, most pundits agree that the Great Recession helped China more than any other state. At first glance, this claim seems obviously true. Unlike the United States and the other major Western powers, which saw their economies plummet and their financial institutions come close to ruin, the Chinese economy has kept on growing. Chinese financial institutions, considered technically insolvent only a few years ago, now boast balance sheets and market capitalizations that Western banks can only dream of. With its economy expected to grow at 9 percent in 2010, China will soon surpass Japan as the world's second-largest economy (measured in U.S. dollars). Pundits like Martin Jacques, a veteran British journalist, are predicting that China will soon rule the world—figuratively, if not literally.

Yet before declaring this the Chinese century, you might want to take another look at what's actually taken place in the country over the past year.

One of the strangest things about predictions of Chinese dominance is that they tend to impress everyone but the Chinese themselves. Take China's supposedly miraculous economic recovery. While the international business community has practically run out of words to praise Beijing's handling of the crisis, Chinese leaders haven't stopped worrying. They fret that their banks have gone on a reckless lending binge; Liu Mingkang, China's chief bank regulator, warned in September that "all sorts of risks have risen" as a result. He's right. In the first half of 2009, Chinese banks shelled out roughly $1.2 trillion, creating a potential tidal wave of future nonperforming loans. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) used much of the money to speculate in the real-estate and stock markets and to make questionable expansions; as a result, Dragonomics, a Beijing-based consultancy, now estimates that as much as one sixth of all the bank loans made between 2008 and 2010 could end up not paying off. Yet Beijing is still wary of shutting off the spigot, lest China prove unable to keep growing without it.

Its leaders' frequently voiced trepidation may be overstated. Perhaps the officials are simply being modest or trying to soothe Western worries about the so-called China Threat. It's far more likely, however, that China's leaders are actually telling the truth. They know their country has indeed pulled off the world's most impressive recovery. But they also know that's a relative -accomplishment—and China has paid a huge long-term price in the process. In addition to sowing the seeds for future dud loans, its investment-focused stimulus policies have exacerbated the country's economic imbalances by creating new productive -capacities—factories and the like—without really boosting China's anemic household consumption. In other words, Chinese plants may be cranking out even more TVs, cars, and toys than before, but no Chinese are buying them. Loosened bank credit has mainly benefited SOEs, allowing these inefficient behemoths to expand at the expense of the private sector, which has been given little access to the government's largess.

Meanwhile, China has yet to confront what has become an enormous overcapacity for producing cheap goods. During the boom, when Americans were hungry for these products, Chinese exports registered double-digit growth year after year, accounting for nearly a quarter of the country's net GDP growth. Now that nervous and debt-ridden U.S. consumers have virtually shut their pocketbooks, China can no longer expect them to snap up its wares. To account for this change, Beijing must embark on some painful restructuring, shuttering many export--oriented factories and strengthening the social safety net to boost household consumption (which remains stuck below 40 percent of GDP). China's leaders know all this. But they've yet to take the plunge.

Dig a bit deeper, and it becomes very difficult to pin down just how exactly China has gained so much from the crisis. Its failures are much more evident. Take Beijing's lack of success in snapping up prized assets overseas. For several years, Chinese leaders have aimed to secure foreign natural resources by acquiring effective control of or stakes in oilfields, mining companies, and commodity producers in other countries. Beijing is convinced that such moves are essential for its long-term security. Yet opposition by Western politicians, entrenched multinationals, and vigilant governments in developing countries has stymied many attempts by cash-flush Chinese SOEs to execute their government's master plan. During the first months of the crisis, these SOEs and China's sovereign-wealth fund did nab modest stakes in a few minor natural-resource companies. But they failed to score a big hit, and there were some embarrassing failures. In late 2008, for example, Chinalco (a state-owned Chinese aluminum company) reached a tentative agreement to pay $19.5 billion to increase its stake in Rio Tinto, a global mining giant. But fierce shareholder opposition and the skepticism of Australian regulators doomed the deal, to Beijing's intense frustration. To borrow a colorful Chinese proverb, Chinalco saw its "cooked duck fly away." This ignominious setback served as an uncomfortable reminder of the humiliation of 2005 when CNOOC, one of China's state-owned oil companies, was prevented from taking over Unocal, an American energy producer, by congressional opposition.



Another puzzle: if China is so strong, why doesn't it show more leadership in addressing global problems? While Chinese officials show up at almost every important gathering of world leaders, and their opinions and support are eagerly solicited, they consistently maintain a low profile, preferring to focus on guarding their national interests and skipping opportunities to showcase their soft power. At the G20 summit in London in April 2009, for example, the only thing China cared about was keeping Hong Kong off the list of offshore tax havens being scrutinized. Beijing's coffers may be bulging with $2.1 trillion in foreign-currency reserves, but it is not exactly offering to spend that cash on common crises. Besides calling for a new international reserve currency, China has remained mostly silent on how to reform the global financial system. Nor did it take charge in advance of the make-or-break Copenhagen climate-change conference in December 2009. Beijing's foreign policy remains stuck in a reactive mode; if this is a superpower, no one's told the Politburo yet.
SUBSCRIBE sp_inline_article_subscriptionClick Here to subscribe to NEWSWEEK and save up to 88% »

Still, most Chinese leaders seem unconcerned with their inability to translate strength into real gains on the international stage. That's because they're far more concerned with domestic stability. Yet here again the news is hardly reassuring. Antigovernment riots and collective protests throughout China are on the rise. Corruption remains rampant. More than a dozen senior officials, ranging from a vice minister of public security to several CEOs of giant SOEs, were arrested in 2009. The political maneuvering for the next succession, due in 2012, has already begun, making Chinese leaders all the more cautious—even a tiny misstep between now and then could be politically catastrophic.

The worst news on this front has been the reemergence of ethnic separatism in China's restive, but resource-rich, border regions. The bloody riots of July 2009 in Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, killed nearly 200 and wounded more than 1,000, making it China's worst ethnic conflict in three decades. Coupled with the Tibet problem, the challenge by the Uighurs to Chinese rule will preoccupy the minds of Beijing's ruling elites for years to come—and keep their sights firmly fixed on matters domestic.

All this helps explain why, while China's leaders may be mightily relieved to have escaped the worst consequences of the world economic crisis, they see no cause to celebrate. True, the crunch enabled China to close the economic gap with its badly ravaged rivals, particularly the U.S. and Japan. And popular perceptions of new Chinese strength have allowed China's leaders to bask in the global limelight and flaunt their elevated international status to the Chinese public. Deep down, however, Chinese leaders are no fools. They understand perfectly well how tough are the challenges they still face—and how quickly fortune can turn. If only foreigners knew this as well. Of course, the Chinese are thrilled that everyone thinks they're the biggest winner. The truth, however, is that they're more like the least-bad losers—and they know it.

Pei is the Tom and Margot Pritzker '72 professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.

© 2009

Chinese inherently look inwards.  That should not be news to anyone who has studied Chinese history.

 China must not be that strong, because it doesnt take a more active role in righting world problems?

Is that a bad joke?

In response to both Mono and Lettow, I was more interested in what he had to say about the Chinese economy.

The Chinese were ruling the largest empire in the world through a remarkably functional bureaucracy, defended by steel and crossbows when my ancestors where screaming naked in the darkest forests of Europe.

I fail to see why it is so weird that China is becoming more powerful and wealthier.  This is a return of China to it's rightful place more than anything else.   :yeahright:

Quote from: Queequeg on December 10, 2009, 12:20:43 AM
The Chinese were ruling the largest empire in the world through a remarkably functional bureaucracy, defended by steel and crossbows when my ancestors where screaming naked in the darkest forests of Europe.

I fail to see why it is so weird that China is becoming more powerful and wealthier.  This is a return of China to it's rightful place more than anything else.   :yeahright:

My grandparents were always curious about who that nut was screaming past their house naked into the forest.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1.fantasticfiction.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fn1%2Fn9125.jpg&hash=dd2d17076e73e09a9af0a1a6b30b05b9b18e73c1)


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_LSIlUCixAQ0%2FSdJ2XCwQx2I%2FAAAAAAAAAGQ%2FPo5HgzcSU80%2Fs400%2FJim_Burns_Chung_Kuo_4_The_Stone_Within.jpg&hash=492fb7692758bc18af2fee241866f5a5ac88d621)

Quote from: Monoriu on December 09, 2009, 10:33:18 PM
Chinese inherently look inwards.  That should not be news to anyone who has studied Chinese history.

Americans (and most Europeans, for that matter) are extremely aggressive peoples, far more than they themselves admit.

For them, the idea of a "powerful" nation is always, always, that of an expanding power, one that seeks dominance over all others and does not tolerate, if possible, any rival.

That another race can have a different approach to global politics is totally beyond their compreension.

Thus, if China is strong, they reason, surely it *will* try to rule the world.

If China does not attempt to impose itself on the world, then they will surmise that is due to some weakness, and never due to differences of attitude.

China's expansion has been slow but each area secured has been colonised by Han Chinese and made part of the metropolitan area. Go back 3000 years and the civilisation was centred around the Yellow river. During the Han dynasty the Yangtze valley was a colonial zone.. During the 19th and 20th centuries Manchuria was sinicised. Nowadays it is the turn of inner Mongolia, Tibet and Sinkiang. I'd be worried about them if I was Russia, Korea, Mongolia or Vietnam.......

Otherwise it is the return of the Middle Kingdom to it's typical position in world affairs. I suggest we send emissaries, perhaps a crack corps of Jesuits, with gifts and expressions of respect; there is no particular need for the West to worry about Chinese expansionism.

Russia being absorbed by the Chinese would be a step up on the civilization scale for them. ;)

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 10, 2009, 03:47:32 AM
China's expansion has been slow but each area secured has been colonised by Han Chinese and made part of the metropolitan area. Go back 3000 years and the civilisation was centred around the Yellow river. During the Han dynasty the Yangtze valley was a colonial zone.. During the 19th and 20th centuries Manchuria was sinicised. Nowadays it is the turn of inner Mongolia, Tibet and Sinkiang. I'd be worried about them if I was Russia, Korea, Mongolia or Vietnam.......

Otherwise it is the return of the Middle Kingdom to it's typical position in world affairs. I suggest we send emissaries, perhaps a crack corps of Jesuits, with gifts and expressions of respect; there is no particular need for the West to worry about Chinese expansionism.

Vietnam, I have no worries since they have been doing that for centuries and in the '70s and '80s most recently. There is still the Spratleys for spicing up the ambient besides.
A divided Korea is perfect for China. Now Russia and its demographic collapse and empty lands... Mongolia can survive as a vassal or reunite with Inner Mongolia ;)

I like my Mongolia unspoiled, so the damn Chicommies better keep their hands off of it.  :mad:

Quote
Vietnam, I have no worries since they have been doing that for centuries and in the '70s and '80s most recently.

Heh, I'd love to see China get involved in another 500+ year quagmire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chinese_domination_%28History_of_Vietnam%29) in Vietnam.

'The Great Recession'?
Since when has it been called that?

Quote from: Tyr on December 10, 2009, 08:18:35 AM
'The Great Recession'?
Since when has it been called that?

Looks like the term took off in December 2008 according to the graph.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/great-recession-a-brief-etymology/

QuoteMarch 11, 2009, 5:39 pm
'Great Recession': A Brief Etymology
By CATHERINE RAMPELL

The "Great Recession" has taken hold.

As a term, that is.

The title "Great Recession" seems to be gaining some currency. After months of floundering over what pithy moniker to call this mess we're in, a number of analysts, economists, historians, reporters, columnists, critics and even International Monetary Fund officials have begun using the term, often with a qualifier like, "what some are calling 'The Great Recession.'"

Clark Hoyt, the Times's public editor, asked me on Tuesday who had coined the phrase, and when. I wasn't sure, so I did some archive searches.

Brian Stelter, a colleague who covers the media, wrote back in December that "In the last week, 'Great Recession' has become a popular phrase." Here's a quick, highly unscientific Nexis archive search on articles containing the term "Great Recession"

GRAPH

The chart does give you the general sense that the term really caught on in December, after months of more sporadic use. Most usages of "Great Recession" that occurred before autumn were made in a predictive sense. In April, Portfolio's Jesse Eisinger, for example, predicted that "The next president will take office during what may well come to be known as the Great Recession."

But here's the thing: Nobody can take credit for coining the term "The Great Recession" during the last year. Why? Because the "Great Recession of 2008″ is not the first recession to be slapped with the lofty title. Every recession of the last several decades has, at some point or another, received this special designation:

    * Some economists believed the recession of 2001 would be a "Great Recession."
    * In "The Return of Depression Economics," first published in 1999, Paul Krugman wrote about the "Great Recession" of his era.
    * The downturn of the early 1990s was on occasion referred to as the "Great Recession." The term was especially used to describe the situation in Connecticut.
    * Some referred to the recessions of the 1980s as the Great Recession.
    * Forbes proclaimed "the Great Recession of 1979″ in an issue dated Nov. 26, 1979.
    * Before that, Forbes had proclaimed 1974-75 as the "Great Recession." So did Newsweek, and so did this New York Times column.

And so on.

Why does this term keep cropping up, downturn after downturn? It does seem strange, after all, that experts keep portending "The Great Recession" for recessions that in retrospect might seem somewhat mild (or even nonexistent, according to the official Business Cycle Dating Committee).

Perhaps "Great Recession" claims return periodically because the term is vaguely punny, and people just like to appreciate a clever turn of phrase. Or perhaps its regular revivals have something to do with a near-eschatological desire to witness a downturn of epic, historical proportions. After all, as long as we're suffering, we might as well brand the suffering so it'll sound more impressive to our grandchildren.

None of this is to say, of course, that the current downturn won't rightfully earn the title of "Great Recession" — only that the prior, relatively lax uses of the designation seem to dilute its fearsomeness.

Addendum: I'm not clear on when "The Great Depression" became officially known as "The Great Depression," or even just a "depression." In 1930, the economist John Maynard Keynes famously referred to it as "The Great Slump of 1930," so it's a wonder that label didn't stick. The Oxford English Dictionary's quotations section for the entry on the term "depression" includes the following chronology:

   1934 A. HUXLEY Beyond Mexique Bay 233 Since the depression, books on Mexico have been almost as numerous..as books on Russia. 1935 'J. GUTHRIE' Little Country xiii. 212 'I thought you had a baby.' 'No, darling,' said Carol. 'None of us are having them now. It's the depression.' 1935 Punch 19 June 719/1 All the wireless sets in Little Wobbly are pre-depression models. 1957 M. SHARP Eye of Love iii. 39 It was the Depression that had finished him off.

Feel free to share any information on the popularizing of the term "The Great Depression" (or, for that matter, "The Great Recession") in the comments.

Quote from: Monoriu on December 09, 2009, 10:33:18 PM
Chinese inherently look inwards.  That should not be news to anyone who has studied Chinese history.

Well right.  In order to dominate the world you need a reason to do so.

However I think this time the importance of the world economy and securing resources will force China into a role it doesn't want.  No country with any wisdom would ever want to be a world power, it is a ruinous position in the long term.

Quote from: Martim Silva on December 10, 2009, 03:31:13 AM
Americans (and most Europeans, for that matter) are extremely aggressive peoples, far more than they themselves admit.

For them, the idea of a "powerful" nation is always, always, that of an expanding power, one that seeks dominance over all others and does not tolerate, if possible, any rival.

That another race can have a different approach to global politics is totally beyond their compreension.

Thus, if China is strong, they reason, surely it *will* try to rule the world.

If China does not attempt to impose itself on the world, then they will surmise that is due to some weakness, and never due to differences of attitude.

Curse that westerner Minxin Pei, he cannot conceive some people might think outside his white male protestant box.

Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 09:11:31 AM

Quote from: Martim Silva on December 10, 2009, 03:31:13 AM
Americans (and most Europeans, for that matter) are extremely aggressive peoples, far more than they themselves admit.

For them, the idea of a "powerful" nation is always, always, that of an expanding power, one that seeks dominance over all others and does not tolerate, if possible, any rival.

That another race can have a different approach to global politics is totally beyond their compreension.

Thus, if China is strong, they reason, surely it *will* try to rule the world.

If China does not attempt to impose itself on the world, then they will surmise that is due to some weakness, and never due to differences of attitude.

Curse that westerner Minxin Pei, he cannot conceive some people might think outside his white male protestant box.

Oooh, that's better than my response.  I will delete mine.

Quote from: Monoriu on December 09, 2009, 10:33:18 PM
Chinese inherently look inwards.  That should not be news to anyone who has studied Chinese history.

The extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

Quote from: Malthus on December 10, 2009, 09:31:41 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 09, 2009, 10:33:18 PM
Chinese inherently look inwards.  That should not be news to anyone who has studied Chinese history.

The extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

Not really, as Europe's first barbarian frontier was Illyria/Macedonia, then the upstart Romans in Italy, then Iberia, then Gaul, then Britain, then Germany, then Scandinavia, then the Baltics and Poland, then Russia and then Sibera. After that it went global with America, Afirca, and everywhere else outside of Europe.

Quote from: Monoriu on December 09, 2009, 10:33:18 PM
Chinese inherently look inwards.  That should not be news to anyone who has studied Chinese history.

Dang, even I know that.  You'd think Minxin Pei would know better.

Quote from: Malthus on December 10, 2009, 09:31:41 AM
Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

You make a good point, but I would call that "inward colonialism", or a Chinese Manifest Destiny.  Not really what most of us would think of when we hear "colonialism".

Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2009, 11:29:45 AM
Not really what most of us would think of when we hear "colonialism".

Because today when we hear about "colonialism" it hardly ever has to do with actually colonizing anything.  What it usually means is a business based in a first world country wants to do business inside a third world country.

Pretty funny settling Han Chinese in an area wouldn't be called "colonizing".

Quote from: PJL on December 10, 2009, 11:18:17 AM

Quote from: Malthus on December 10, 2009, 09:31:41 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 09, 2009, 10:33:18 PM
Chinese inherently look inwards.  That should not be news to anyone who has studied Chinese history.

The extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

Not really, as Europe's first barbarian frontier was Illyria/Macedonia, then the upstart Romans in Italy, then Iberia, then Gaul, then Britain, then Germany, then Scandinavia, then the Baltics and Poland, then Russia and then Sibera. After that it went global with America, Afirca, and everywhere else outside of Europe.

Europe never ended up "colonized' by any single culture. In spite of many efforts, it always lacked the unity of China, even at the height of the Roman Empire. "Colonization" was always a two-way street in Europe itself, not a steady march of any one people, except on a purely national level (see: France, Spain). When "Europe" (or rather individual European nations) set out to colonize on a grand scale, it did so outside of Europe for the most part - aside from relatively small scale stuff like Germanic colonists in the Baltic, or various Balkan nastiness. Europeans constantly warred against each other and often imposed their rule over other European peoples but only rarely "colonized" them, and never on a continental scale: there simply is no one European "people" that compares with the Han (Hitler's latter-day attempt notwithstanding). 

China was often conquored in part or in whole by various barbarians, and there was certainly some to-ing and fro-ing on the borders of central asia, but in general what is remarkable about China is the steady continental growth and colonization of the Han as a people, much more unified that the various warring peoples of Europe, constantly expanding at the expense of all of China's neighbours. 

Quote from: derspiess on December 10, 2009, 11:29:45 AM

Quote from: Malthus on December 10, 2009, 09:31:41 AM
Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

You make a good point, but I would call that "inward colonialism", or a Chinese Manifest Destiny.  Not really what most of us would think of when we hear "colonialism".

Why not?

The good old USA expanding to the pacific at the expense of natives and Mexicans is considered "colonization", what distinguishes that from China's steady expansion in Asia?

 Anyone who does not stiffly oppose China's rise to power is a collaborator and traitor to the West.
(Especially Queequeg. 'Western civ isnt totally awesome and cool enough!' Being soft on Russia and China at the same time is brutal. This man is clearly a red mole.)

Quote from: Malthus on December 10, 2009, 11:34:43 AMThe extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

The unity of China is an interesting thing.  As I understand it, it's spent as much time fractured (various rival dynasties, Three Kingdoms, Warring States and various periods where significant parts of the country was de facto ruled by various warlords) as a unitary state.

On a related note, many of the people who are now considered Han were not considered that previously.  The significant differences in language groups is another indicator that it's not accurate to think of "Han China" as a monolithic group.

Quote from: Lettow77 on December 10, 2009, 11:39:00 AM
Anyone who does not stiffly oppose China's rise to power is a collaborator and traitor to the West.
(Especially Queequeg. 'Western civ isnt totally awesome and cool enough!' Being soft on Russia and China at the same time is brutal. This man is clearly a red mole.)

And you're a shit-eating wannabe traitor of the greatest defender of Western values in the world, retard.
I want the West to do well.  I want China to do well.  I want Russia to do well.  I want the Islamic world to do well.  I want India to do well.  I don't see the contradiction here. 

Quote from: Malthus on December 10, 2009, 09:31:41 AM

The extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

That depends on your definition of inward, isn't it?  "China" means the official boundaries of the country, not "places that Hans live in".  So Hans moving from, say, Beijing to Tibet is just like Americans moving from the continental states to Alaska. 

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2009, 01:35:03 AM

Quote from: Malthus on December 10, 2009, 09:31:41 AM

The extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

That depends on your definition of inward, isn't it?  "China" means the official boundaries of the country, not "places that Hans live in".  So Hans moving from, say, Beijing to Tibet is just like Americans moving from the continental states to Alaska.

That ignores two things. 1, that borders have changed over time. 2, that Americans moving into the west is certainly considered colonialism even though they were within our borders at the time. How is the Han migration different?

Quote from: Queequeg on December 11, 2009, 12:20:53 AM

Quote from: Lettow77 on December 10, 2009, 11:39:00 AM
Anyone who does not stiffly oppose China's rise to power is a collaborator and traitor to the West.
(Especially Queequeg. 'Western civ isnt totally awesome and cool enough!' Being soft on Russia and China at the same time is brutal. This man is clearly a red mole.)

And you're a shit-eating wannabe traitor of the greatest defender of Western values in the world, retard.
I want the West to do well.  I want China to do well.  I want Russia to do well.  I want the Islamic world to do well.  I want India to do well.  I don't see the contradiction here.

I do. For the West to do well China, Russia and Islam must falter.

Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2009, 11:31:39 AM
Because today when we hear about "colonialism" it hardly ever has to do with actually colonizing anything.  What it usually means is a business based in a first world country wants to do business inside a third world country.

And if that's colonizing, then China has been much better at it than us.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 11, 2009, 02:40:59 AM

That ignores two things. 1, that borders have changed over time. 2, that Americans moving into the west is certainly considered colonialism even though they were within our borders at the time. How is the Han migration different?

The biggest difference is that China will not criticize others for doing it, and the courtesy is not returned :contract:

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2009, 03:08:18 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 11, 2009, 02:40:59 AM

That ignores two things. 1, that borders have changed over time. 2, that Americans moving into the west is certainly considered colonialism even though they were within our borders at the time. How is the Han migration different?

The biggest difference is that China will not criticize others for doing it, and the courtesy is not returned :contract:

I seem to remember a simdgeon of criticism about the Japanese colonization of Manchuria.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 11, 2009, 03:11:13 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2009, 03:08:18 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 11, 2009, 02:40:59 AM

That ignores two things. 1, that borders have changed over time. 2, that Americans moving into the west is certainly considered colonialism even though they were within our borders at the time. How is the Han migration different?

The biggest difference is that China will not criticize others for doing it, and the courtesy is not returned :contract:

I seem to remember a simdgeon of criticism about the Japanese colonization of Manchuria.

That's armed invasion on a totally different level. 

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2009, 03:08:18 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 11, 2009, 02:40:59 AM

That ignores two things. 1, that borders have changed over time. 2, that Americans moving into the west is certainly considered colonialism even though they were within our borders at the time. How is the Han migration different?

The biggest difference is that China will not criticize others for doing it, and the courtesy is not returned :contract:

Please tell me you are joking and not arguing that if a country A did something 200 years ago, it cannot criticize a country B doing that thing today?

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2009, 03:14:16 AM
That's armed invasion on a totally different level.

Tibetans would disagree

Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2009, 03:19:39 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2009, 03:08:18 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 11, 2009, 02:40:59 AM

That ignores two things. 1, that borders have changed over time. 2, that Americans moving into the west is certainly considered colonialism even though they were within our borders at the time. How is the Han migration different?

The biggest difference is that China will not criticize others for doing it, and the courtesy is not returned :contract:

Please tell me you are joking and not arguing that if a country A did something 200 years ago, it cannot criticize a country B doing that thing today?

I am using this as an example to tell the difference between Chinese and western culture.

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 11, 2009, 03:25:01 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2009, 03:14:16 AM
That's armed invasion on a totally different level.

Tibetans would disagree

Of course.  But any impartial observer should see the difference between Japanese conquest of Manchuria and Hans moving to Tibet.  It is just as absurd to compare Operation Barbarossa with US Manifest Destiny. 

Hans 'moved' to Tibet right behind the tanks and soldiers that conquered it

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 11, 2009, 04:05:41 AM
Hans 'moved' to Tibet right behind the tanks and soldiers that conquered it

Or "re-asserted rightful control" over the region :contract:

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2009, 03:43:07 AM

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 11, 2009, 03:25:01 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2009, 03:14:16 AM
That's armed invasion on a totally different level.

Tibetans would disagree

Of course.  But any impartial observer should see the difference between Japanese conquest of Manchuria and Hans moving to Tibet.  It is just as absurd to compare Operation Barbarossa with US Manifest Destiny.

Indeed, after all, Manifest Destiny and the conquest of Tiet are success stories while the Japanese colonization of Manchuria was a dismal failure.

Actually this again illustrates a difference in point of view.  China, including its government and people, rarely feel sympathy for separatist movements anywhere in the world. 

I saw this ages ago and felt it to be a pretty good summary of China, fits in with a lot of what people are saying but in other ways...nto so much:

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/292-china-as-an-island/

I have found it interesting that the definition of "colonization" proposed by the radical Left has now become so accepted that people here are arguing that it is "surely" true... despite the fact that it does not involve "colonies" at all.

In the world of the less politically-inclined historians, "colonialism" refers to the establishment of colonies (ie subordinate geographic and political entities which may or may not be expected to go off on their own, like Carthage).  National expansion (like "Drang Nach Osten,""manifest destiny" or the current Han efforts in Tibet) is national expansion, and the areas being expanded into are not colonies, but national territory.

To the hard Left, of course, just about any injustice is "colonialism."  The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

Quote from: Jacob on December 10, 2009, 01:38:32 PM

The unity of China is an interesting thing.  As I understand it, it's spent as much time fractured (various rival dynasties, Three Kingdoms, Warring States and various periods where significant parts of the country was de facto ruled by various warlords) as a unitary state.

On a related note, many of the people who are now considered Han were not considered that previously.  The significant differences in language groups is another indicator that it's not accurate to think of "Han China" as a monolithic group.

Han Chinese are not a wholly "monolithic" group, but they are certainly more "monolithic" than "Europeans". Chinese folks opf the majority (Han) ethnicity certainly consider themselves as different from other folk, and more similar to each other in spite of regional dialects.

It is notable that China proper contains many minority ethnic groups that are not Han. These are the remnants of the pre-Han peoples who have survived incorporation by the Han.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_China

The Chinese have a concept for "china-ness" that transcends purely Han ethnicity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhonghua_Minzu

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 07:04:43 AM
I have found it interesting that the definition of "colonization" proposed by the radical Left has now become so accepted that people here are arguing that it is "surely" true... despite the fact that it does not involve "colonies" at all.

In the world of the less politically-inclined historians, "colonialism" refers to the establishment of colonies (ie subordinate geographic and political entities which may or may not be expected to go off on their own, like Carthage).  National expansion (like "Drang Nach Osten,""manifest destiny" or the current Han efforts in Tibet) is national expansion, and the areas being expanded into are not colonies, but national territory.

To the hard Left, of course, just about any injustice is "colonialism."  The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

I think you lost me here.

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 07:04:43 AM
The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

Do you have a link or cite for this proposition?

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 07:04:43 AM
I have found it interesting that the definition of "colonization" proposed by the radical Left has now become so accepted that people here are arguing that it is "surely" true... despite the fact that it does not involve "colonies" at all.

In the world of the less politically-inclined historians, "colonialism" refers to the establishment of colonies (ie subordinate geographic and political entities which may or may not be expected to go off on their own, like Carthage).  National expansion (like "Drang Nach Osten,""manifest destiny" or the current Han efforts in Tibet) is national expansion, and the areas being expanded into are not colonies, but national territory.

To the hard Left, of course, just about any injustice is "colonialism."  The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

The purpose of the comparison is essentially perjorative. The reason to bring up "colonialism" at all is the assumption that "colonialism" is morally "bad". The reason "colonialism" is morally "bad" is not that it is a system whereby a metropolitan sets up a subordinate entity known as a "colony", but rather because in so doing the "colonizer" is generally subordinating or dispossessing some existing persons. It is this process of subordinating or dispossessing that creates the moral "bad-ness" or injustice of "colonialism".

A national group engaging in some form of "Drang Nach Osten" is generally speaking indulging in exactly the same "bad-ness" of dispossessing or subordinating existing groups - they simply are not travelling to some geographically remote location to do so.

Thus, if someone was to say "China never engages in the evils of colonialism - only those nasty Europeans and Americans are that vicious", while what they are saying is true in one sense - China does not, in fact, set up geographically remote colonies - it is obviously and blatantly untrue in another, in that the premise on which the statement is based (that "colonialism" is morally wrong) is based on behaviour that China is in point of fact engaging in with enthusiasm on its borders.

In summary, such a statement is a sort of bait-and-switch in which the whole point is to emphasize a distinction quite irrelevant for the moral analysis being performed - the geographical remoteness of a "colony" from the "metropolitan power" - in favour of deliberately obscuring the relevant similarity - that in both cases, the reason for complaint is the suppression of the locals. 

QuoteI want the West to do well.  I want China to do well.  I want Russia to do well.  I want the Islamic world to do well.  I want India to do well.  I don't see the contradiction here.

Really, Queequeg? India is practically the West, and is one of our bastions on that continent. But Islam and China are rival civilisations; their advances must neccesarily be our reverses. Western civilisation has the potential to dominate the entire world, and it should.

Russia I am loathe to call a 'civilisation', just a band of perpetually treacherous thugs. If they stand for anything, it is naked opportunism and brutality. They are a villain on the world stage, and must be contained.

Quote from: Lettow77 on December 11, 2009, 12:04:01 PM
Really, Queequeg? India is practically the West, and is one of our bastions on that continent. But Islam and China are rival civilisations; their advances must neccesarily be our reverses. Western civilisation has the potential to dominate the entire world, and it should.

Russia I am loathe to call a 'civilisation', just a band of perpetually treacherous thugs. If they stand for anything, it is naked opportunism and brutality. They are a villain on the world stage, and must be contained.

China's goal is to get richer.  That is not a zero sum game.

Quote from: Malthus on December 11, 2009, 10:21:39 AM
The purpose of the comparison is essentially perjorative. The reason to bring up "colonialism" at all is the assumption that "colonialism" is morally "bad". The reason "colonialism" is morally "bad" is not that it is a system whereby a metropolitan sets up a subordinate entity known as a "colony", but rather because in so doing the "colonizer" is generally subordinating or dispossessing some existing persons. It is this process of subordinating or dispossessing that creates the moral "bad-ness" or injustice of "colonialism".

A national group engaging in some form of "Drang Nach Osten" is generally speaking indulging in exactly the same "bad-ness" of dispossessing or subordinating existing groups - they simply are not travelling to some geographically remote location to do so.

Thus, if someone was to say "China never engages in the evils of colonialism - only those nasty Europeans and Americans are that vicious", while what they are saying is true in one sense - China does not, in fact, set up geographically remote colonies - it is obviously and blatantly untrue in another, in that the premise on which the statement is based (that "colonialism" is morally wrong) is based on behaviour that China is in point of fact engaging in with enthusiasm on its borders.

In summary, such a statement is a sort of bait-and-switch in which the whole point is to emphasize a distinction quite irrelevant for the moral analysis being performed - the geographical remoteness of a "colony" from the "metropolitan power" - in favour of deliberately obscuring the relevant similarity - that in both cases, the reason for complaint is the suppression of the locals.

Exactly.  The term "colonialism" is used by the Left to indicate "bad" - just as "imperialism" is used as loosely and for similar situations.

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 10:16:02 AM

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 07:04:43 AM
The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

Do you have a link or cite for this proposition?

Is there a reason for this question?  Do you seriously doubt my statement?  If I have a cite, will it change anything?

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 03:27:20 PM

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 10:16:02 AM

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 07:04:43 AM
The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

Do you have a link or cite for this proposition?

Is there a reason for this question?  Do you seriously doubt my statement?  If I have a cite, will it change anything?

When I saw your statement I had my doubts that any actual leftist had said any such thing.  Of course there are plenty of leftist loons so I guess it's possible, but it doesn't strike me as a very rational thing to say (even by a leftist).

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 03:27:20 PM

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 10:16:02 AM

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 07:04:43 AM
The failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit is "colonialism" to many ardent Leftists.

Do you have a link or cite for this proposition?

Is there a reason for this question?  Do you seriously doubt my statement?  If I have a cite, will it change anything?

Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 04:01:31 PM
Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

Fair enough.  I have a cite.  The new urban colonialism: gentrification in a global context by Dr Rowland Atkinson.  Now, you tell me what has changed.

Quote from: Barrister on December 11, 2009, 04:01:14 PM
When I saw your statement I had my doubts that any actual leftist had said any such thing.  Of course there are plenty of leftist loons so I guess it's possible, but it doesn't strike me as a very rational thing to say (even by a leftist).

There are as many loons on the left as on the right, and those who think gentrification is "urban colonialism" are probably less loony than others.  Of course, they think that it is a useful term for the emotive rather than semantic content, but that is precisely why I mention it in the context of the emotive context of the use of colonialism.

I dunno why you or ulmont really thought this somehow significant, but I am sure that ulmont will now explain it, since he said that it did change things.

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 04:43:29 PM

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 04:01:31 PM
Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

Fair enough.  I have a cite.  The new urban colonialism: gentrification in a global context by Dr Rowland Atkinson.  Now, you tell me what has changed.

1) I note you provided no more pinpoint cite other than an entire book, which is a bit useless.

2) I also note that the title is not related to Detroit or the "failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit."

3) I further note that the book, as evidenced from its title and the front matter, relates purely to gentrification and not to the general hellhole that Detroit has become.

4) I additionally note that no single page in the book where the term "Detroit" appears (as verified through "search inside the book" and the index) blames the federal government for not rescuing and stabilizing Detroit.

So now I think you're lazy in addition to making things up, is what's changed.

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 05:00:07 PM
1) I note you provided no more pinpoint cite other than an entire book, which is a bit useless.

That is what has changed?  Seems a bit useless.

Quote2) I also note that the title is not related to Detroit or the "failure of the US government to rescue and stabilize Detroit."

That is what has changed?  Seems a bit useless.

Quote3) I further note that the book, as evidenced from its title and the front matter, relates purely to gentrification and not to the general hellhole that Detroit has become.

That is what has changed?  Seems a bit useless.

Quote4) I additionally note that no single page in the book where the term "Detroit" appears (as verified through "search inside the book" and the index) blames the federal government for not rescuing and stabilizing Detroit.

That is what has changed?  Seems a bit useless.

QuoteSo now I think you're lazy in addition to making things up, is what's changed.

So, as I expected, you actually didn't care about sources, and simply were going to believe what you believed no matter what!  :lol:  That's kinda what I thought; I suspected that the call for a citation was not honestly meant.

h, and yes the book does deal with gentrification and refers to it sometimes as "urban colonialism."  It does regard the failure of government to support the crumbling infrastructure of any city (including Detroit) until the gentrification is complete as an aid to such "colonization."  You can argue that no (or "not many")  "leftists" would sign on to such a concept (especially those in certain types of community development movements, as gentrification is seen as an enemy), but I would need to see a cite.

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 04:43:29 PM

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 04:01:31 PM
Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

Fair enough.  I have a cite.  The new urban colonialism: gentrification in a global context by Dr Rowland Atkinson.  Now, you tell me what has changed.

Reading through a portion of the book (via google books) the author's main point is gentrification=colonialism.  He almost seem to imply that neighborhoods should not be rescued or gentrified.

So it doesn't make the exact point you were attributing to leftists (that the failure to rescue Detroit = colonialism) but it is close enough and crazy enough for me to concede that someone, somewhere almost certainly has said such a thing.

I love the smell of frantic googling to find flimsy shit to support points made in haste.

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 04:43:29 PM

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 04:01:31 PM
Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

Fair enough.  I have a cite.  The new urban colonialism: gentrification in a global context by Dr Rowland Atkinson.  Now, you tell me what has changed.

I didn't know Mr. Bean was a doctor.

Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2009, 06:42:13 PM

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 04:43:29 PM

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 04:01:31 PM
Yes to all 3.  I think you have caricatured "ardent Leftists" here.  Detroit?

Fair enough.  I have a cite.  The new urban colonialism: gentrification in a global context by Dr Rowland Atkinson.  Now, you tell me what has changed.

I didn't know Mr. Bean was a doctor.

As a matter of fact, he is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO0f2ue_ecI
Though how being a surgeon qualifies him to comment on urban colonization by leftist Chinese is beyond me.

Quote from: The Brain on December 11, 2009, 06:20:51 PM
I love the smell of frantic googling to find flimsy shit to support points made in haste.

I prefer frantic googling to find funny videos and pictures.

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 06:15:28 PMSo, as I expected, you actually didn't care about sources, and simply were going to believe what you believed no matter what!  :lol:  That's kinda what I thought; I suspected that the call for a citation was not honestly meant.

I went through your book, searched, and everything, which is more than you provided to me, so fuck you.

Quote from: Barrister on December 11, 2009, 06:16:59 PM
Reading through a portion of the book (via google books) the author's main point is gentrification=colonialism.  He almost seem to imply that neighborhoods should not be rescued or gentrified.

So it doesn't make the exact point you were attributing to leftists (that the failure to rescue Detroit = colonialism) but it is close enough and crazy enough for me to concede that someone, somewhere almost certainly has said such a thing.

It looks to me like the book grumbler has cited makes the exact opposite point.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 11, 2009, 07:29:27 PM
As a matter of fact, he is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO0f2ue_ecI

That would have been much better with a turkey on his head

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 07:37:56 PM

Quote from: Barrister on December 11, 2009, 06:16:59 PM
Reading through a portion of the book (via google books) the author's main point is gentrification=colonialism.  He almost seem to imply that neighborhoods should not be rescued or gentrified.

So it doesn't make the exact point you were attributing to leftists (that the failure to rescue Detroit = colonialism) but it is close enough and crazy enough for me to concede that someone, somewhere almost certainly has said such a thing.

It looks to me like the book grumbler has cited makes the exact opposite point.

Nah.  I couldn't quite figure out exactly what "point" the book was making since it seemed to ridiculous, but it was clearly tying urban development to the concept of colonialism.  I didn't see a specific passage about Detroit, but it was a good enough source for me.

Quote from: Barrister on December 11, 2009, 07:53:24 PMtying urban development to the concept of colonialism.

That's the exact opposite of "failing to save" a city.

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 07:57:17 PM

Quote from: Barrister on December 11, 2009, 07:53:24 PMtying urban development to the concept of colonialism.

That's the exact opposite of "failing to save" a city.

Not really - they seem to want the government to spend money in urban areas, just not in ways that any rational person would do it.

Quote from: Barrister on December 11, 2009, 07:59:57 PM

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 07:57:17 PM

Quote from: Barrister on December 11, 2009, 07:53:24 PMtying urban development to the concept of colonialism.

That's the exact opposite of "failing to save" a city.

Not really - they seem to want the government to spend money in urban areas, just not in ways that any rational person would do it.

At best, you're now several steps removed from "OMG!  THE FEDERAL GUMMINT NOT SAVING DETROIT IS COLONIALISM!"  The items being complained of as colonialism are not gummit actions...

...and, that book clearly supports a "leftists have called gentrification colonialism" statement.  But, as seen by the whole "$1 houses in Detroit" thread, whatever has happened in Detroit is not gentrification; gentrification *improves* property values.

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 07:37:10 PM

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 06:15:28 PMSo, as I expected, you actually didn't care about sources, and simply were going to believe what you believed no matter what!  :lol:  That's kinda what I thought; I suspected that the call for a citation was not honestly meant.

I went through your book, searched, and everything, which is more than you provided to me, so fuck you.

But you dismissed the claim despite having a source that suported it, because you couldn't immediately find something that said what I said.  Of course, you needed iron-clad evidence to accept my assertion, but wanted your assertions (which were not even sourced at all) accepted with no support. 

The "so fuck you," by the way, is a classy touch.

In short, you don't understand what the urban colonialism movement is about, but you are going to claim that it doesn't exist anyway.  I can tell you right now how this conversation is going to go:
(1) Eventually, you will concede that it exists, but argue that it doesn't consider gentrification to be the urban colonization.
(2) Eventually, you will concede that it considers gentrification to be the urban colonization., but argue that it doesn't consider the US government's lack of infrastructure support in the cities (until the gentrification is underway) to be a cause of the "colonization."
(3) Eventually, you will concede that it considers the US government's lack of infrastructure support in the cities (until the gentrification is underway) to be a cause of the "colonization," but argue that this doesn't include Detroit.
(4) Eventually, you will concede that this includes Detroit, but argue that these aren't ardent leftists.
(5) Eventually, you will drop out of the argument rather than concede that these are ardent leftists.

How do I know that?  Because I know the movement exists, and what it preaches (Obama was peripherally involved with some of these people, though I don't think he bought into the ideology), and that Detroit isn't excluded from their movement's interests.  I have no idea why you picked this particular isue to rear up on your hind legs, but it probably isn't one you want to ride down in flames on.  If you want to refute the argument that "to the hard Left, of course, just about any injustice is 'colonialism'" then you should probably keep your eye on the ball.

Quote from: grumbler link=topic=3104.msg158720#msg158720
But you dismissed the claim despite having a source that suported it, because you couldn't immediately find something that said what I said.

So...you refused to point out the actual part that would support your claim; awesome.   :lmfao:

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 08:03:20 PM

Quote from: Barrister on December 11, 2009, 07:59:57 PM

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 07:57:17 PM

Quote from: Barrister on December 11, 2009, 07:53:24 PMtying urban development to the concept of colonialism.

That's the exact opposite of "failing to save" a city.

Not really - they seem to want the government to spend money in urban areas, just not in ways that any rational person would do it.

At best, you're now several steps removed from "OMG!  THE FEDERAL GUMMINT NOT SAVING DETROIT IS COLONIALISM!"  The items being complained of as colonialism are not gummit actions...

...and, that book clearly supports a "leftists have called gentrification colonialism" statement.  But, as seen by the whole "$1 houses in Detroit" thread, whatever has happened in Detroit is not gentrification; gentrification *improves* property values.

I think we should call it Kwamefication.

I read enough of the referenced book to get the "kill whitey" gist.  That was enough for me.

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 09:31:04 PM

Quote from: grumbler link=topic=3104.msg158720#msg158720
But you dismissed the claim despite having a source that suported it, because you couldn't immediately find something that said what I said.

So...you refused to point out the actual part that would support your claim; awesome.   :lmfao:

Still at stage one, I see.  Since we both know where this is going, no, I am not going to jump through hoops and type shit out because you want me to.  I have demonstrated my good faith by providing a book that talks about the movement.  Until you pony up some counter-indicative evidence, I am going to rest on my oars.

Another potentially interesting thread falls victim to a "tedium hijack".  Sadly, those are becoming more common than even the ACW hijacks were at their zenith.   :(

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on December 11, 2009, 10:02:55 PM
Another potentially interesting thread falls victim to a "tedium hijack".  Sadly, those are becoming more common than even the ACW hijacks were at their zenith.   :(

McClellan was underrated.  If he had only gotten the troops he asked for, he would have taken Richmond in no time!!11!!eleven!

If Joe Johnston were left in charge of the Army of Tennessee, the war would still be going on.

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2009, 10:01:20 PM
I have demonstrated my good faith by providing a book that talks about the movement.  Until you pony up some counter-indicative evidence, I am going to rest on my oars.

Yeah, and last time you did that what happened?  The battle of Aegospotami.

Quote from: ulmont on December 11, 2009, 09:31:04 PM
So...you refused to point out the actual part that would support your claim; awesome.   :lmfao:

Dude, the book is only 260 pages. You're able to read, aren't you? :P ;)

If Sherman had fought for the South, we would all be speaking retard today.

Quote from: Kleves on December 12, 2009, 02:16:12 AM
If Sherman had fought for the South, we would all be speaking retard today.

If Sherman fought for the south he would have lost.

Quote from: Kleves on December 12, 2009, 02:16:12 AM
If Sherman had fought for the South, we would all be speaking retard today.

So this thread is from a parallel universe where Sherman fought for the south?

Quote from: DisturbedPervert on December 11, 2009, 07:51:27 PM

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 11, 2009, 07:29:27 PM
As a matter of fact, he is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO0f2ue_ecI

That would have been much better with a turkey on his head

Most things would be.

Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2009, 02:43:07 AM

Quote from: Kleves on December 12, 2009, 02:16:12 AM
If Sherman had fought for the South, we would all be speaking retard today.

If Sherman fought for the south he would have lost.

Agreed, the South was really really poorly suited for total war, even if it was indirect.

Responding to the article that opens the thread . . .

The analysis is pretty sound.  China has escaped the worst of the global recession.  It has done so primarily by flooding the state banking system with money, which in turn has pushed state-owned and quasi-state owned business into increasing investment.  This, as Pei indicates, only exacerbates the fundamental distortions in the Chinese economy -- namely, over-investment, under-consumption, horribly inefficient allocation of capital.  The tough choices have been deferred, but they can't be deferred indefinitely.

Similar ground was covered in an even more stark manner in the Financial Times editorial page last week:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/afac7ada-e448-11de-bed0-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

QuoteWhy China's exchange rate policy concerns us
By Martin Wolf

Published: December 8 2009 22:53

A country's exchange rate cannot be a concern for it alone, since it must also affect its trading partners. But this is particularly true for big economies. So, whether China likes it or not, its heavily managed exchange rate regime is a legitimate concern of its trading partners. Its exports are now larger than those of any other country. The liberty of insignificance has vanished . . . .

having accumulated $2,273bn in foreign currency reserves by September, China has kept its exchange rate down, to a degree unmatched in world economic history. Finally, China has, as a result, distorted its own economy and that of the rest of the world. Its real exchange rate is, for example, no higher than in early 1998 and has depreciated by 12 per cent over the past seven months, even though China has the world's fastest-growing economy and largest current account surplus.

What we are seeing, as Mr Carney points out, is a failure of adjustment to changes in global competitiveness that has unhappy precedents, notably during the 1920s and 1930s, with the rise of the US, and, again, during the 1960s and 1970s, with the rise of Europe and Japan. As he also notes, "China's integration into the world economy alone represents a much bigger shock to the system than the emergence of the US at the turn of the last century. China's share of global gross domestic product has increased faster and its economy is much more open."

. . . .

Unfortunately, as we have also long known, two classes of countries are immune to external pressure to change policies that affect global "imbalances": one is the issuer of the world's key currency; and the other consists of the surplus countries. Thus, the present stalemate might continue for some time. But the dangers this would create are also evident: if, for example, China's current account surplus were to rise towards 10 per cent of GDP once again, the country's surplus could be $800bn (€543bn, £491bn), in today's dollars, by 2018. Who might absorb such sums? US households are broken on the wheel of debt, as are those of most of the other countries that ran large current account deficits. That is why governments are now borrowers of last resort.

For the external deficit countries, the concern is how to lower fiscal deficits without tipping their economies back into recession. That will be impossible unless they are either able to get their private sectors spending and borrowing as before, or they enjoy rapid expansion in net exports. Of the two, the latter is the safer route to health. But that in turn, will only happen if surplus countries expand demand faster than potential output. China is the most important single player in this game.

Fortunately, these adjustment are in the long-term interests of both sides, including China. As a recent report from the European Chamber points out, China's external surpluses have been a by-product of misguided policy.** Thus, capital was priced too cheaply in the 2000s, via cheap credit and low taxes on corporate profits, while foreign exchange was deliberately kept too expensive by currency interventions. In the process, income was transferred from households to industry. The result was an extraordinary surge in exports and capital-intensive heavy industry, with little job creation. Household disposable incomes fell to an extremely low share of GDP, while corporate investment, savings and the current account surplus soared. The short-term response to the crisis, with soaring credit and fixed investment, while successful in sustaining demand, reinforced these tendencies, rather than offset them. Another round of huge increases in excess capacity and current account surpluses seems inevitable.

China's exchange rate regime and structural policies are, indeed, of concern to the world. So, too, are the policies of other significant powers. What would happen if the deficit countries did slash spending relative to incomes while their trading partners were determined to sustain their own excess of output over incomes and export the difference? Answer: a depression. What would happen if deficit countries sustained domestic demand with massive and open-ended fiscal deficits? Answer: a wave of fiscal crises . . .

QuoteAddendum: I'm not clear on when "The Great Depression" became officially known as "The Great Depression," or even just a "depression." In 1930, the economist John Maynard Keynes famously referred to it as "The Great Slump of 1930," so it's a wonder that label didn't stick. The Oxford English Dictionary's quotations section for the entry on the term "depression" includes the following chronology:

My understanding is that prior to the Great Depression all periods of prolonged economic shrinkage were called 'depressions'.  At some point the Great Depression gained capital letters; ever since then we've used the word recession.

That article is bullshit.

The moment the chinese realize the power they bear, we are going to be in trouble.
That's why we need to contain them now, and do everything in our power to keep them down.
A world ruled by China is not an option for the West.

Incidentally I think the US is ridiculously bullish about China.  I think popular discourse seriously underestimates the distance China still has to go to be even a mostly developed nation.  Also I read an article recently that said that basically China's soft power has sort of run out.  For a long time China has been projecting herself as being fundamentally like any other developing nation, albeit a particularly large one.  As her economic muscle has grown - in the region and internationally - countries in ASEAN and Africa are considerably less sold on that and increasingly see China as another, relatively, strong economic power - regardless of the the third worldist sheen the Chinese government likes to present.

There is a good medium term bull case for China, based primarily on the fact that even now they are functioning at a relatively low average standard of living.  There are still hundreds of millions of people living at just at or above subsistence, and so just getting those people to even a substandard level by OECD standards could take involve decades of high growth.

Long term there is a big question mark, as to whether China can successfully pass the Chun-Chiang line - that is the point at which a society reaches a level of mass affluence such that hard authoritarian rule cannot be maintained at the same time as continuing economic progress.

Short term there are the problems mentioned above.

Yeah, I think China's soft power works more along the following lines:

1) We're interested in economic relationships with you and we're not going to give you any guff about your "internal affairs" in any shape or form.  Whether it's human rights, local kleptocrats, environmental issues or whatever we're not going to really care.  Let's do business.

2) We're a pretty big power with pull and money with somewhat different priorities than the US, Europe or the old USSR.  Sometimes that's a better fit, so let's do business.

3) We are very unlikely to engage in foreign military adventures.  It's all about business, so let's do it.

Predicting China's imminent financial meltdown has become something of a cottage industry for over a decade, and one made particularly lucrative by the fact that - so far- nothing has actually happened.  I find it difficult to get worked up about yet another alarmist article.

Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2009, 09:06:08 PM
Yeah, I think China's soft power works more along the following lines:

1) We're interested in economic relationships with you and we're not going to give you any guff about your "internal affairs" in any shape or form.  Whether it's human rights, local kleptocrats, environmental issues or whatever we're not going to really care.  Let's do business.

2) We're a pretty big power with pull and money with somewhat different priorities than the US, Europe or the old USSR.  Sometimes that's a better fit, so let's do business.

3) We are very unlikely to engage in foreign military adventures.  It's all about business, so let's do it.

I imagine it helps quite a bit that there are no checks on China's ability to bribe business partners.

Quote from: Jacob on December 15, 2009, 09:06:08 PM
Yeah, I think China's soft power works more along the following lines:

The article I read was basically saying that a lot of smaller nations, especially in ASEAN increasingly see China as effectively very similar to the US or other more developed nations in terms of economic practice.  Another problem is that China's industrialisation has led to massive overcapacity in some areas which means they're really damaging certain sectors in neighbouring countries, I believe Vietnam's already considering devaluation to try and compete with Chinese prices.  One line in the article struck me as interesting as well it was some Indonesian guy and he said 'China is China, you know.  Even the US can't talk to China.'  That and I think the perception that China is now perceived as a major economic player is a big shift from even 10 years ago when China could credibly claim to be a nation like Indonesia or Vietnam just bigger.

QuoteThere is a good medium term bull case for China, based primarily on the fact that even now they are functioning at a relatively low average standard of living.  There are still hundreds of millions of people living at just at or above subsistence, and so just getting those people to even a substandard level by OECD standards could take involve decades of high growth.

I agree.  I suppose I didn't quite say what I meant earlier.  I think many Americans - and the American media - seems to have a ridiculously distorted picture of China's economic strength that overemphasises China's development (which has been remarkable) while showing very little awareness of the sheer amount of further development needed in China to reach even Eastern European levels.  I also think that there seems to be a blitheness about China's development - except, I imagine, in China's ruling class.  China should be an economic superpower, but getting there is very difficult and so we shouldn't just assume that it will inevitably happen when thinking about China.

A lot of the articles about how China and India will run the world or how the BRIC countries will dominate reminds me of an article I read in 2001 that was originally published in 1901 which predicted that the twentieth century would see the rise and rise in global economic strength of the USA, Belgium and Argentina.  I think development is actually very difficult and it can be derailed.  While I'd expect and hope that China and India assume what I'd consider a sort-of rightful place, I don't assume that it will happen as sure as night will follow day.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2009, 10:34:35 PM
I imagine it helps quite a bit that there are no checks on China's ability to bribe business partners.

Interestingly Chinese companies have got the sort of rights to the overwhelming majority of Afghan mines.  According to some US officials they managed to get one by bribing the Afghan Minister of Mines and Resources with $25 million (cash).

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2009, 09:03:09 PM
Long term there is a big question mark, as to whether China can successfully pass the Chun-Chiang line - that is the point at which a society reaches a level of mass affluence such that hard authoritarian rule cannot be maintained at the same time as continuing economic progress.

I've always wondered if it's possible to have a soft authoritarian state, a pink police state if you will.  Have economic success and complete liberty to enjoy yourself: go and buy a new PC, play games, get drunk, sleep around, eat out and party.  However don't get involved in politics.

I think Italy always seems getting closer to that as politics there seems to be turning into a reality TV show.  It's just another form of entertainment to enjoy.

How weird it would be if a Communist country consciously tried to create false consciousness :o

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on December 15, 2009, 10:28:23 PM
Predicting China's imminent financial meltdown has become something of a cottage industry for over a decade, and one made particularly lucrative by the fact that - so far- nothing has actually happened.  I find it difficult to get worked up about yet another alarmist article.

Yeap.  I often wonder if these articles about China's imminent collapse aren't covert PRC propaganda to make us let our guard down.   :D

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2009, 10:46:31 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2009, 09:03:09 PM
Long term there is a big question mark, as to whether China can successfully pass the Chun-Chiang line - that is the point at which a society reaches a level of mass affluence such that hard authoritarian rule cannot be maintained at the same time as continuing economic progress.

I've always wondered if it's possible to have a soft authoritarian state, a pink police state if you will.  Have economic success and complete liberty to enjoy yourself: go and buy a new PC, play games, get drunk, sleep around, eat out and party.  However don't get involved in politics.

I think Italy always seems getting closer to that as politics there seems to be turning into a reality TV show.  It's just another form of entertainment to enjoy.

How weird it would be if a Communist country consciously tried to create false consciousness :o

Singapore maybe?
Well, except for all the stuff they ban or give you fines for. But other than that it seems to be fairly soft. Of course, it is a city-state, and what works for them might not for others.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2009, 10:46:31 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2009, 09:03:09 PM
Long term there is a big question mark, as to whether China can successfully pass the Chun-Chiang line - that is the point at which a society reaches a level of mass affluence such that hard authoritarian rule cannot be maintained at the same time as continuing economic progress.

I've always wondered if it's possible to have a soft authoritarian state, a pink police state if you will.  Have economic success and complete liberty to enjoy yourself: go and buy a new PC, play games, get drunk, sleep around, eat out and party.  However don't get involved in politics.

It could be possible to have an affluent state that significantly restricts civil liberties.  Arguably Britain has been moving in that direction . . .

But it is hard for me to imagine a modern affluent society maintaining any stability without reasonably free elections, political competition and some possibility of electoral change.  Japan kind of got away with it for a while but ultimately it could not be sustained.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2009, 11:46:55 PM
But it is hard for me to imagine a modern affluent society maintaining any stability without reasonably free elections, political competition and some possibility of electoral change.  Japan kind of got away with it for a while but ultimately it could not be sustained.

Japan worked fine as long as they could deliver steady growth.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2009, 11:50:55 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2009, 11:46:55 PM
But it is hard for me to imagine a modern affluent society maintaining any stability without reasonably free elections, political competition and some possibility of electoral change.  Japan kind of got away with it for a while but ultimately it could not be sustained.

Japan worked fine as long as they could deliver steady growth.

Japan also had some of the above, and certainly more political competition than exists in China.

Edit:  I had also written something about the rule of law, but I'm not 100% sure I could post it.   :huh:

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2009, 10:46:31 PM
I've always wondered if it's possible to have a soft authoritarian state, a pink police state if you will.  Have economic success and complete liberty to enjoy yourself: go and buy a new PC, play games, get drunk, sleep around, eat out and party.  However don't get involved in politics.

We will have the opportunity to find out if the Labour party win the next general election  :huh:



In fact, thinking about it, we may well find out regardless of which of the parties wins. A hung parliament and a period of minor civil disturbance may be our best bet to get back on track.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 16, 2009, 04:12:33 AM
A hung parliament and a period of minor civil disturbance may be our best bet to get back on track.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F6%2F60%2FHangmans_Noose.jpg%2F187px-Hangmans_Noose.jpg&hash=366c5a661beed1651dc1da24cc5dc4d8df4df9af)

:yes:

QuoteIt could be possible to have an affluent state that significantly restricts civil liberties.  Arguably Britain has been moving in that direction . . .

So the media keeps telling me but I just don't see it.
I fail to be too concerned about ID cards beyond expense and pointlessness, CCTV is good, etc....

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2009, 10:46:31 PM
I've always wondered if it's possible to have a soft authoritarian state, a pink police state if you will.  Have economic success and complete liberty to enjoy yourself: go and buy a new PC, play games, get drunk, sleep around, eat out and party.  However don't get involved in politics.

Some sort of athiest UAE?
hmm......

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2009, 10:46:31 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 15, 2009, 09:03:09 PM
Long term there is a big question mark, as to whether China can successfully pass the Chun-Chiang line - that is the point at which a society reaches a level of mass affluence such that hard authoritarian rule cannot be maintained at the same time as continuing economic progress.

I've always wondered if it's possible to have a soft authoritarian state, a pink police state if you will.  Have economic success and complete liberty to enjoy yourself: go and buy a new PC, play games, get drunk, sleep around, eat out and party.  However don't get involved in politics.

I think Italy always seems getting closer to that as politics there seems to be turning into a reality TV show.  It's just another form of entertainment to enjoy.

How weird it would be if a Communist country consciously tried to create false consciousness :o

It would be possible to create such a state; it would not I think be possible to keep it "soft", since without some form of election-like checks and balances invariably eventually you would get a leader who had no interest in keeping it "soft" and there would be nothing to stop them.

The problem in any system of government is transitions of power. A dictatorship by a benevolent philosopher-king would be ideal, if you found the right person - but how would such a person ensure transition to a similarly benevolent ruler? Marcus Aurelius' son was Commoditus ...

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 15, 2009, 10:42:51 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2009, 10:34:35 PM
I imagine it helps quite a bit that there are no checks on China's ability to bribe business partners.

Interestingly Chinese companies have got the sort of rights to the overwhelming majority of Afghan mines.  According to some US officials they managed to get one by bribing the Afghan Minister of Mines and Resources with $25 million (cash).

Good for them.  Let them figure out how to protect them.

Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2009, 10:06:51 AM
Good for them.  Let them figure out how to protect them.

Agreed.  The more interests China has abroad the closer they get to being the ones responsible for keeping it all together.  I look forward to that day.  The Chinese wont care about rules of engagement they will blow the fuck out of any fundy Muslims who fuck with them.

Quote from: Siege on December 15, 2009, 01:52:33 PM
That article is bullshit.

The moment the chinese realize the power they bear, we are going to be in trouble.
That's why we need to contain them now, and do everything in our power to keep them down.
A world ruled by China is not an option for the West.

Why not?  We want to make money and they want to make money.  We want stability and fewer nutty people and they want the same thing.  So long as we are willing to sacrifice the parts of the world they see as China I don't see why would be in trouble.

Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2009, 10:06:51 AM
Good for them.  Let them figure out how to protect them.

I believe they've paid off the local tribes.

QuoteIt would be possible to create such a state; it would not I think be possible to keep it "soft", since without some form of election-like checks and balances invariably eventually you would get a leader who had no interest in keeping it "soft" and there would be nothing to stop them.

Well I suppose that's why I'm interested in China because the institutions there seem closer to requiring the change of leadership and no sudden moves that could enable it to continue.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 16, 2009, 11:36:36 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on December 16, 2009, 10:06:51 AM
Good for them.  Let them figure out how to protect them.

I believe they've paid off the local tribes.

QuoteIt would be possible to create such a state; it would not I think be possible to keep it "soft", since without some form of election-like checks and balances invariably eventually you would get a leader who had no interest in keeping it "soft" and there would be nothing to stop them.

Well I suppose that's why I'm interested in China because the institutions there seem closer to requiring the change of leadership and no sudden moves that could enable it to continue.

Not certain what you are saying here.

The current stability of China is a recent creation; under Mao, China was anything but stable.