QuoteBO'AO, China — The senior leadership of the Chinese government increasingly views the competition between the United States and China as a zero-sum game, with China the likely long-range winner if the American economy and domestic political system continue to stumble, according to an influential Chinese policy analyst.
China views the United States as a declining power, but at the same time believes that Washington is trying to fight back to undermine, and even disrupt, the economic and military growth that point to China's becoming the world's most powerful country, according to the analyst, Wang Jisi, the co-author of "Addressing U.S.-China Strategic Distrust," a monograph published this week by the Brookings Institution in Washington and the Center for International and Strategic Studies at Peking University.
Mr. Wang, who has an insider's view of Chinese foreign policy from his positions on advisory boards of the Chinese Communist Party and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, contributed an assessment of Chinese policy toward the United States. Kenneth Lieberthal, the director of the John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings, and a former member of the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton, wrote the appraisal of Washington's attitude toward China.
In a joint conclusion, the authors say the level of strategic distrust between the two countries has become so corrosive that if not corrected the two countries risk becoming open antagonists.
The United States is no longer seen as "that awesome, nor is it trustworthy, and its example to the world and admonitions to China should therefore be much discounted," Mr. Wang writes of the general view of China's leadership.
In contrast, China has mounting self-confidence in its own economic and military strides, particularly the closing power gap since the start of the Iraq war. In 2003, he argues, America's gross domestic product was eight times as large as China's, but today it is less than three times as large.
The candid writing by Mr. Wang is striking because of his influence and access, in Washington as well as in Beijing. Mr. Wang, who is dean of Peking University's School of International Studies and a guest professor at the National Defense University of the People's Liberation Army, has wide access to senior American policy makers, making him an unusual repository of information about the thinking in both countries. Mr. Wang said he did not seek approval from the Chinese government to write the study, nor did he consult government officials about it.
It is fairly rare for a Chinese analyst who is not part of the strident nationalistic drumbeat to strip away the official talk by both the United States and China about mutual cooperation.
Both Mr. Wang and Mr. Lieberthal argue that beneath the surface, both countries see deep dangers and threatening motivations in the policies of the other.
Mr. Wang writes that the Chinese leadership, backed by the domestic news media and the education system, believes that China's turn in the world has arrived, and that it is the United States that is "on the wrong side of history." In sum, the period of "keeping a low profile," a dictum coined by the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1989, and continued until now by the outgoing President Hu Jintao, is over, Mr. Wang warns.
"It is now a question of how many years, rather than how many decades, before China replaces the United States as the largest economy in the world," he adds.
China's financial successes, starting with weathering the 1998 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 global financial crisis, and the execution of events like the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and the Shanghai Expo in 2010, contrast with America's "alarming" deficit, sluggish economic recovery and polarized domestic politics, Mr. Wang says.
He does not address head on the far superior strength of the United States in military weaponry. But he notes that Beijing has developed advanced rocketry and space technology and sophisticated weapons systems without the "United States or the U.S.-led world order."
In the face of China's strengths, and worries that the United States will be displaced from its premier position in the world, Washington is engaged in a host of activities, including stepped-up spying by American planes and ships along China's borders that angers the Chinese, particularly its military, Mr. Wang writes.
Promotion of human rights in China by American-supported nongovernmental organizations is viewed as an effort to "Westernize" the country and directly undermine the Communist Party, a stance the party will not stand for, he says.
China's increasing confidence that it will prevail in the long run against the United States is backed, in part, by Mr. Lieberthal's appraisal of American policy toward China.
Mr. Lieberthal cites findings from American intelligence based on internal discussions among crucial Chinese officials that these officials assume "very much a zero-sum approach" when discussing issues directly and indirectly related to United States-China relations.
Because these are privileged communications not intended for public consumption, American officials interpret them to be "particularly revealing of China's 'real' objectives," Mr. Lieberthal writes.
In turn, American law enforcement officials see an alarming increase in Chinese counterespionage and cyberattacks against the United States that they have concluded are directed by the Chinese authorities to gather information of national interest.
At a seminar last week at Tsinghua University in Beijing, where Brookings funds a study center, Mr. Lieberthal said there was an increasing belief on both sides that the two countries would be "antagonistic in 15 years."
That would mean major military expenditures by both countries to deter the other, and pushing other countries to take sides. "The worst case is that this could lead to actual armed conflict, although that is by no means a necessary consequence of mutual antagonism," Mr. Lieberthal said in an interview.
The PRC: the world's greatest threat to peace and human progress. The West: too weak and stupid to do anything about it.
Well, duh.
The Chinese think generationally; the US thinks until the next election cycle.
That's why we need to take advantage of the imbalance in strategic nuclear forces now, while we still can.
Got a link?
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 12:25:13 PM
Got a link?
www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf
It's from the NYT I believe.
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 12:25:13 PM
Got a link?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html?_r=1&hp
Thanks :)
Nuke 'em.
So beyond the predictable nuke-em-all suggestions and variations, what do you guys think the likely trajectory of China-US relations in the next little while is? What are the reasonable actions either side should take? What's the best possible, not-unrealistic development and what needs to happen for it to come to pass?
Personally I think the most likely trajectory is one of increased tension, but I'm hoping it's one that ends up more along the lines of the Great Power conflicts in the later part of the Victorian age. So lots of diplomatic posturing, protestations of good intentions combined with behind the scenes cloak and dagger stuff, and general jockeying for position. It'll make for great fiction, as any tragedies are mostly on the individual or community scale rather than global. Of course, it runs the risk of triggering a worst case scenario, which is large scale armed conflict.
I don't think it's a given that China manages to keep a lid on all its internal problems, the two biggest being corruption and a poor conflict resolution process for internal conflict (ethnic, class and economic). It's not far-fetched that China tears itself apart over the next couple of decades, though I think it's less than 50%... but the chance is high enough that it wouldn't be surprising either. The downside to that, of course, is that the Chinese leadership is likely to turn to nationalism and outside enemies to help control the population so that could lead somewhere ugly. The average Chinese isn't that different from the average American when it comes to nationalism and education about the world outside the homeland.
As for the US... I'm a bit worried about the rise of the unreasonable right and what it's doing to to the country's ability to deal with the world. None of the US' problems seem unsurmountable, but sometimes I wonder whether the system is as dysfunctional as it occasionally seems. Maybe I'm just reading too much into election time posturing, but I do wonder how much actual policymaking is influenced by that. Ultimately, like China, I think the US' position depends on getting its own house in order. So I guess my question is, how big are the US' internal problems really, and are they fixable? If they aren't, I think China makes a very convenient external enemy.
In the end, then, I think the biggest risk comes if both the US and China responds to internal stresses by encouraging nationalistic focus on each other to divert attention away from their respective problems. How likely is that?
On another note - we hear a lot about Chinese shenanigans in terms of human intelligence, cyber attacks and so on. Conversely, whenever we hear about US intelligence actions it's all about spy planes and surveying ships and things like that. So two questions:
1) How developed is the US intelligence game when it comes to cyber attacks and human intelligence? How good are the US intelligence networks in China? If they're not good, how come?
2) Conversely, what will the US reaction be if (when) China starts conducting similar spy-plane operations near the US? Or is there no point for them to do so, because whatever intel they'll obtain is available from other sources anyhow?
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 01:19:30 PM
So beyond the predictable nuke-em-all suggestions and variations, what do you guys think the likely trajectory of China-US relations in the next little while is?
They will continue to sucker punch us, and we will continue to accept it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2012, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 01:19:30 PM
So beyond the predictable nuke-em-all suggestions and variations, what do you guys think the likely trajectory of China-US relations in the next little while is?
They will continue to sucker punch us, and we will continue to accept it.
What are the likely end-games?
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 01:24:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2012, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 01:19:30 PM
So beyond the predictable nuke-em-all suggestions and variations, what do you guys think the likely trajectory of China-US relations in the next little while is?
They will continue to sucker punch us, and we will continue to accept it.
What are the likely end-games?
They will inevitably collapse under the weight of their own dysfunctional economic and political model. Just like the Soviets did.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2012, 01:27:34 PMThey will inevitably collapse under the weight of their own dysfunctional economic and political model. Just like the Soviets did.
I'd definitely rate that as a possible scenario, yes. I don't think the current Chinese model is sustainable for that much longer, so there'll have to be some sort of evolution or collapse.
How functional do you rate the US as?
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 01:19:30 PM
As for the US... I'm a bit worried about the rise of the unreasonable right and what it's doing to to the country's ability to deal with the world. None of the US' problems seem unsurmountable, but sometimes I wonder whether the system is as dysfunctional as it occasionally seems. Maybe I'm just reading too much into election time posturing, but I do wonder how much actual policymaking is influenced by that. Ultimately, like China, I think the US' position depends on getting its own house in order. So I guess my question is, how big are the US' internal problems really, and are they fixable? If they aren't, I think China makes a very convenient external enemy.
I think China is demonized in the US at least as much by the left as it is by the right.
But back to the article, I don't agree with the notion that it is a zero sum game between the US and China. I'm not even buy that the Chinese believe it.
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2012, 01:58:48 PMI think China is demonized in the US at least as much by the left as it is by the right.
Making it a fairly compelling external enemy, should one be necessary.
QuoteBut back to the article, I don't agree with the notion that it is a zero sum game between the US and China. I'm not even buy that the Chinese believe it.
There's enough Chinese that some of them probably believe it. But yeah, it does seem silly... if it's a zero sum game, you'd expect that the US would've been set back an equal amount to what the Chinese have gained these last couple of decades and that hardly seems to be the case.
Sum-Zero wins.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2012, 01:27:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 01:24:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2012, 01:22:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 01:19:30 PM
So beyond the predictable nuke-em-all suggestions and variations, what do you guys think the likely trajectory of China-US relations in the next little while is?
They will continue to sucker punch us, and we will continue to accept it.
What are the likely end-games?
They will inevitably collapse under the weight of their own dysfunctional economic and political model. Just like the Soviets did.
Yes, but what about China ?
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 02:01:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2012, 01:58:48 PMI think China is demonized in the US at least as much by the left as it is by the right.
Making it a fairly compelling external enemy, should one be necessary.
Okay. But I don't think you need to worry about the "unreasonable right". If anything, worry about some populist movement that is neither expressly left or right.
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2012, 02:10:06 PMOkay. But I don't think you need to worry about the "unreasonable right". If anything, worry about some populist movement that is neither expressly left or right.
Ah, I see what you mean. Yeah, there's nothing about what I call the unreasonable right that's particularly inclined towards conflict with China. My concern about the unreasonable right has less to do with direct foreign policy decisions, and more to do with making it harder for the US to address the various domestic issues which I think are critical for the future of the country.
Unless China uncharacteristically becomes interested in expanding geographically, the relationship can't be described as zero-sum in that regard.
Economics is by its nature not a zero-sum game.
That leaves the arena of international relations. We're already seeing China's influence increasing, largely because of her financial muscle. But that then raises the question of what the ultimate objective of Chinese foreign policy is. If it's the creation of international public goods like trade and stability, why should we care who's doing the heavy lifting? If it's simply aggrandiizement, then there will be a natural feedback look that will work to curtail China's influence.
China can typically be trusted to keep within its sphere. America is the warmongering power between the two.
Japan should stick to a pro-american foreign policy while scaling up its military in realization of the fact that they can't rely on America forever. Good relations with Taiwan and the USA should remain the focus.
(with an eventual aim of re-incorporating taiwan)
Quote from: Kleves on April 02, 2012, 12:10:20 PM
The PRC: the world's greatest threat to peace and human progress. The West: too weak and stupid to do anything about it.
The very fact Wang was permitted to publish his article demonstrates that the senior Chinese leadership is unlikely to have monolithic views about zero-sum competition; that is, he would not have done it unless he had some cover from dissenters from that viewpoint who are sufficiently powerful to make that cover effective.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that Chinas biggest threat ahead of them is the fact that they are entering a demographic transition before they can afford it or in other words they are getting old before they are getting rich enough to support it. The repports of increasing labour costs in China would seem to support this. There just arent enough cheap labour anymore to keep this rapid growth up. Though obviously this is hardly my forte. :blush:
There was an article in this week's Economist regarding increased spending in South East Asia. Most of it was attributed to various nations wanting to modernize their forces, and particularly navies, as tensions regarding the South China Sea rise.
If the article is accruate that would appear to be a good candidate for the next big international crisis.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2012, 03:25:24 PM
There was an article in this week's Economist regarding increased spending in South East Asia. Most of it was attributed to various nations wanting to modernize their forces, and particularly navies, as tensions regarding the South China Sea rise.
If the article is accruate that would appear to be a good candidate for the next big international crisis.
That prediction has been made almost constantly for the last decade or more.
Quote from: Barrister on April 02, 2012, 03:26:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2012, 03:25:24 PM
There was an article in this week's Economist regarding increased spending in South East Asia. Most of it was attributed to various nations wanting to modernize their forces, and particularly navies, as tensions regarding the South China Sea rise.
If the article is accruate that would appear to be a good candidate for the next big international crisis.
That prediction has been made almost constantly for the last decade or more.
Well, if an antire decade has passed without war breaking out, I guess that means peace forever.
I mean really, ten entire years? Why if it hasn't happened in TEN YEARS then surely it cannot happen.
Quote from: Barrister on April 02, 2012, 03:26:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2012, 03:25:24 PM
There was an article in this week's Economist regarding increased spending in South East Asia. Most of it was attributed to various nations wanting to modernize their forces, and particularly navies, as tensions regarding the South China Sea rise.
If the article is accruate that would appear to be a good candidate for the next big international crisis.
That prediction has been made almost constantly for the last decade or more.
If there was a prediction 10 years ago that the South China Sea would be the next big international crisis then it was clearly wrong. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2012, 03:42:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 02, 2012, 03:26:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 02, 2012, 03:25:24 PM
There was an article in this week's Economist regarding increased spending in South East Asia. Most of it was attributed to various nations wanting to modernize their forces, and particularly navies, as tensions regarding the South China Sea rise.
If the article is accruate that would appear to be a good candidate for the next big international crisis.
That prediction has been made almost constantly for the last decade or more.
depends on the definition of big
If there was a prediction 10 years ago that the South China Sea would be the next big international crisis then it was clearly wrong. :P
Crazy Ivan,
by any definition of big, the war in Iraq, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, the global economic melt down, the Arab spring, the Iranian on the verge of making nukes were things that occured before anything of substance occured in the South China Sea.
South China Sea is definitely a flash point but ultimately the Chinese interest is primarily economic and resource-based. A secondary objective is to use it a leverage point to reduce US influence in the Pacific but playing that hand too strong will likely backfire in that respect (in fact to some extent it already has). Of course nations have fought over resource access and economic assets before and it isn't difficult to imagine a series of plausible conduct that ends up in military confrontation. But this is an area which is amenable to resolution by bargaining.
The wild card is Taiwan because the relevant parties have strong emotional commitments. If a future Taiwanese government went hard for independence, the results would be unpredictable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
Economics is by its nature not a zero-sum game.
But it's more zero-sum than people think. Resources are not infinite, even if economists like to pretend that they are. China using more oil and driving the price of it up does directly hurt US.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2012, 04:03:26 PM
But it's more zero-sum than people think. Resources are not infinite, even if economists like to pretend that they are. China using more oil and driving the price of it up does directly hurt US.
Stoopid economists. :mad:
Quote from: Kleves on April 02, 2012, 12:10:20 PM
The PRC: the world's greatest threat to peace and human progress. The West: too weak and stupid to do anything about it.
It's alright, we've got enough of a tech lead and military strength to just concentrate on building our spaceship and beating them to Alpha Centauri.
Jacob, American business interests see China as a huge business opportunity. I don't follow defense stuff much at all, so it sometimes is jarring to come here and read about China as a potential enemy. If you are worried about the US becoming more beligerent, I think that is unlikely--global and US markets depend on China too much. From a production side, and from a consumer side too (although the consumer side is more theoretical, but still priced in).
That dependence goes two ways, but China's government is much more of a longer term wildcard.
Another thing to keep in mind is that China is a couple decades away from hitting the Japanese demographic profile. Growth in the working age population is slowing and will probably hit its peak sometime this decade. Improvements in death rates will keep overall population stable for another decade or so before decline sets in. But we are already seeing some impacts in terms of labor shortages in certain regions and wage hikes. China will have to transition to higher productivity and capital efficiency and the leadership knows this. The demographic shift will force a transition to a more consumption-based economy. All this has implications for international and US bilateral relations because it will moderate economic frictions, and because aging countries don't provide the same domestic pressure for jingoist military adventurism that countries with rapidly growing young populations do.
One serious problem that China has to grapple with is their educational system. By some estimates, up to 70% of Chinese students are outside of the top 30%. I don't see that situation correcting itself any time soon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
Unless China uncharacteristically becomes interested in expanding geographically, the relationship can't be described as zero-sum in that regard.
Economics is by its nature not a zero-sum game.
That leaves the arena of international relations. We're already seeing China's influence increasing, largely because of her financial muscle. But that then raises the question of what the ultimate objective of Chinese foreign policy is. If it's the creation of international public goods like trade and stability, why should we care who's doing the heavy lifting? If it's simply aggrandiizement, then there will be a natural feedback look that will work to curtail China's influence.
Yeah I don't really get what exactly we would be fighting over except domination of Asia and they can have that as far as I am concerned.
The guy always looking over his shoulder, never wins. :bowler:
The more China throws its weight around the more it drives its neighbors into our arms.
Even Burma has had enough of their highhandedness, and that's principally the reason the generals have gone down the road to reform.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2012, 04:42:58 PM
Yeah I don't really get what exactly we would be fighting over except domination of Asia and they can have that as far as I am concerned.
The holy sacred commitment to defend the semisacred isle of Taiwan!
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 02, 2012, 05:50:12 PMThe holy sacred commitment to defend the semisacred isle of Taiwan!
If the precedent of Hong Kong and Macau are indications I do not really think we have much to fear.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2012, 12:32:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 12:25:13 PM
Got a link?
www.nukestrat.com/china/Book-173-196.pdf
:lol:
I like my headline better: "China playing, and losing, zero-sum marriage game with itself."
Eight years now.
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 01:19:30 PM
So beyond the predictable nuke-em-all suggestions and variations, what do you guys think the likely trajectory of China-US relations in the next little while is?
Growing awareness that their use of slave labor, while initially beneficial, harms us; a revival of the truth that we are not free, as long as slavery exists; and more practically, that to compete with slaves we must work as slaves ourselves.
QuoteWhat are the reasonable actions either side should take? What's the best possible, not-unrealistic development and what needs to happen for it to come to pass?
Great big tariffs. Embargo. Collapse of PRChina upon itself. We don't have to do anything, but we can hasten their system's downfall, and the replacement thereof with a better one. Although the demographic crisis cannot be solved externally or internally except by war, time, or serious cultural change.
QuotePersonally I think the most likely trajectory is one of increased tension, but I'm hoping it's one that ends up more along the lines of the Great Power conflicts in the later part of the Victorian age. So lots of diplomatic posturing, protestations of good intentions combined with behind the scenes cloak and dagger stuff, and general jockeying for position. It'll make for great fiction, as any tragedies are mostly on the individual or community scale rather than global. Of course, it runs the risk of triggering a worst case scenario, which is large scale armed conflict.
I don't think it's a given that China manages to keep a lid on all its internal problems, the two biggest being corruption and a poor conflict resolution process for internal conflict (ethnic, class and economic). It's not far-fetched that China tears itself apart over the next couple of decades, though I think it's less than 50%...
100%. The demographic problem is like dynamite. Add to that the shocking class and regional divisions, the ungodly corruption that will prevent any reform, increasing external hostility toward the PRC, and the Chinese penchant for letting things get so desperate that millions will rise in a bloody if usually unwinnable revolt at least once per century, and I don't see them surviving to 2020 in their present form; 2030 at the outside.
We can hasten that. And maybe this time they'll turn better. The RoChinese have shown that Chinese liberal democracy is feasible.
Quotebut the chance is high enough that it wouldn't be surprising either.
Want to make it interesting?
QuoteAs for the US... I'm a bit worried about the rise of the unreasonable right and what it's doing to to the country's ability to deal with the world. None of the US' problems seem unsurmountable, but sometimes I wonder whether the system is as dysfunctional as it occasionally seems. Maybe I'm just reading too much into election time posturing, but I do wonder how much actual policymaking is influenced by that. Ultimately, like China, I think the US' position depends on getting its own house in order. So I guess my question is, how big are the US' internal problems really, and are they fixable? If they aren't, I think China makes a very convenient external enemy.
I dunno. Isn't an enemy that you can't profitably engage without getting a little bit crazy more convenient than one that will bog you down with ten years of occupation. Also, it's a fair fight this time, so maybe it'll seem less like naked imperialism/as if we're picking on the kid with glasses, which I think is what drove a lot of the anti-war sentiment elsewhere.
QuoteIn the end, then, I think the biggest risk comes if both the US and China responds to internal stresses by encouraging nationalistic focus on each other to divert attention away from their respective problems. How likely is that?
Considering that China is a major source of internal stress on the U.S., such a response is both likely, and correct.
I think Chinese mistrust of the US is much greater than the reverse. Fundamentally, the Chinese leadership believes that the US is trying to overthrow the communist regime through subversion, Arab Spring style. Therefore, US-China relations is not a zero-sum game - it is a matter of life and death. Human rights, Tibet, Tinanmen, Falung Gong are all excuses and smokescreens aimed at regime change. That fear is, I think, exaggerated but not entirely unjustified. The communist regime is fragile and they know it. The ultimate goal of Chinese foreign policy is therefore self-preservation.
Well, we would be happy if the communists went away.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 02, 2012, 08:44:31 PM
I think Chinese mistrust of the US is much greater than the reverse. Fundamentally, the Chinese leadership believes that the US is trying to overthrow the communist regime through subversion, Arab Spring style. Therefore, US-China relations is not a zero-sum game - it is a matter of life and death. Human rights, Tibet, Tinanmen, Falung Gong are all excuses and smokescreens aimed at regime change. That fear is, I think, exaggerated but not entirely unjustified. The communist regime is fragile and they know it. The ultimate goal of Chinese foreign policy is therefore self-preservation.
which really is a shame. taiwan is an albatross, and the obsession over the human rights issues is one reason why i could never call myself truly liberal. the united states and china should strive to be on friendly terms, but that may not be possible with the ridiculous anti-OTHER SIDE movements both countries have
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2012, 01:19:30 PM
So beyond the predictable nuke-em-all suggestions and variations, what do you guys think the likely trajectory of China-US relations in the next little while is? What are the reasonable actions either side should take? What's the best possible, not-unrealistic development and what needs to happen for it to come to pass?
I think a lot depends on the new generation of leaders in China. It seems like the last one overplayed their hand which, combined with the administration's clever Asian diplomacy, has left China looking a little more friendless and America a little more essential in the Pacific.
I agree that a big challenge for China is moving to a sustainable model internally. But I think that there's also an external challenge of calming the region and other parts of the world about her rise. I think the Chinese leadership went a bit far in recent years and I don't think they've found a sustainable model for foreign relations either.
QuoteIf you are worried about the US becoming more beligerent, I think that is unlikely--global and US markets depend on China too much. From a production side, and from a consumer side too (although the consumer side is more theoretical, but still priced in).
That dependence goes two ways, but China's government is much more of a longer term wildcard.
Agreed. But much the same was true before World War I. It makes conflict unlikely but if national interest and pride gets involved then they'll probably end up winning out.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 02, 2012, 09:10:49 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 02, 2012, 08:44:31 PM
I think Chinese mistrust of the US is much greater than the reverse. Fundamentally, the Chinese leadership believes that the US is trying to overthrow the communist regime through subversion, Arab Spring style. Therefore, US-China relations is not a zero-sum game - it is a matter of life and death. Human rights, Tibet, Tinanmen, Falung Gong are all excuses and smokescreens aimed at regime change. That fear is, I think, exaggerated but not entirely unjustified. The communist regime is fragile and they know it. The ultimate goal of Chinese foreign policy is therefore self-preservation.
which really is a shame. taiwan is an albatross, and the obsession over the human rights issues is one reason why i could never call myself truly liberal. the united states and china should strive to be on friendly terms, but that may not be possible with the ridiculous anti-OTHER SIDE movements both countries have
You know what else were albatrosses? Poland in 1939 and the Philippines in 1941. COME ON.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 09:26:18 PMYou know what else were albatrosses? Poland in 1939 and the Philippines in 1941. COME ON.
not comparable. if southern china is part of china, or northwestern, then why not tibet. taiwan is a breakaway rebellious province that deserves to be brought back into the fold hong kong-style
As Cecil says China is going to get old before it gets rich.
Also there is the consideration of how they will make the leap from middle to rich. China has got to where it is now as the factory of the world, paying crap wages to make things cheaply. But because it is getting richer its people are demanding higher wages which is making China less competitive. Business goes to China because its cheap but China isn:t the only poor country out there. There are many poor we can go to if China gets more expensive.
Rising transport costs too will make the current world of it being cheaper to make something halfway around the world and ship it over, somewhat shakey. It won't totally defeat such thinking but domestic manufacture will become far more competitive.
Economics is a zero sum game- Ish...somewhat...kind of.
Overall there is a limited amount of resources and everything. At the moment however there are still vast swathes of the world that are undeveloped. Much of Africa just isn't part of the game for instance. We can dip into there to allow some current middling nations to become rich whilst Africa becomes middling.
However.....The big problem I see with the future is that our capacity to manufacture has drastically outstripped our capacity to consume.
This is a problem which goes beyond China though will include them in the future. To keep everyone employed we will have to manufacture a lot more than everyone, even fully employed, could ever want to buy. Which just wouldn:t work. The future I foresee is quite a depressing one of unemployment being the norm. Perhaps with countries scrapping over what few jobs there are.
I don't see rising labour costs as a bad thing. After all, the ultimate goal of economic development is so that the population has a higher standard of living. The best way to achieve that is through higher wages. Nobody should be satisfied with being a manufacturer of cheap goods forever. A stepping stone, yes, but the long-term goal is to become a service-provider and inventor. Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and many other places went through similar phases.
Actually, the Chinese textiles industry is dying. Or already dead. A lot of these factories are operated by HK companies and most of them have moved elsewhere, mostly to Bangladesh. I won't call it as China losing its competitiveness. I think it is China moving on to more profitable businesses.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 02, 2012, 09:30:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 09:26:18 PMYou know what else were albatrosses? Poland in 1939 and the Philippines in 1941. COME ON.
not comparable. if southern china is part of china, or northwestern, then why not tibet. taiwan is a breakaway rebellious province that deserves to be brought back into the fold hong kong-style
Because we can't put the Seventh Fleet in the Himalayas. But we can defend the RoC (I guess technically we could defend Tibet too, with glorious airpower, but it would be much harder). The people of the RoC have chosen to resist diplomatic or forcible reunion with the mainland; in doing so, they have fostered something like liberty, not to mention relative prosperity; why do you think it necessary for them they circumscribed the freedoms they enjoy with a half-century contract with Beijing? And why should other free states not protect them? If you let a totalitarian empire attack the interests you value less, as you evidently do the happiness and well-being of twenty-three million people, they will only be stronger when they come for the interests you value more. Like when they destroy labor protections in an advanced economy.
And Hong Kong should never have been returned. The British abandoned their responsibility as a sovereign. If it had to be returned, it should have been returned to the legitimate government of China. At the least, they should have held a referendum and guaranteed vindication of its results.
If the Argentines had just asked nicely, apparently, it would have worked.
Quote from: Tyr on April 02, 2012, 09:31:37 PM
However.....The big problem I see with the future is that our capacity to manufacture has drastically outstripped our capacity to consume.
This is a problem which goes beyond China though will include them in the future. To keep everyone employed we will have to manufacture a lot more than everyone, even fully employed, could ever want to buy. Which just wouldn:t work. The future I foresee is quite a depressing one of unemployment being the norm. Perhaps with countries scrapping over what few jobs there are.
The future will be a standard of living guaranteed by the government. The question is how much bullshit is going to happen before we finally get there.
(Alternatively, the future will be the serious decline of human civilization and human numbers. But that's covered under "bullshit," really.)
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 09:49:10 PM
And Hong Kong should never have been returned. The British abandoned their responsibility as a sovereign. If it had to be returned, it should have been returned to the legitimate government of China. At the least, they should have held a referendum and guaranteed vindication of its results.
No thanks.
See? They've brainwashed Monoriu and turned him into a working stiff, completely unconcerned with freedom or due process!
Quote from: Monoriu on April 02, 2012, 09:43:25 PM
I don't see rising labour costs as a bad thing. After all, the ultimate goal of economic development is so that the population has a higher standard of living. The best way to achieve that is through higher wages. Nobody should be satisfied with being a manufacturer of cheap goods forever. A stepping stone, yes, but the long-term goal is to become a service-provider and inventor. Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and many other places went through similar phases.
Actually, the Chinese textiles industry is dying. Or already dead. A lot of these factories are operated by HK companies and most of them have moved elsewhere, mostly to Bangladesh. I won't call it as China losing its competitiveness. I think it is China moving on to more profitable businesses.
Depends how you look at it.
From a shallow perspective of the Chinese people- yep. More money and western standard of living is of course good! Totally don't blame them for wanting the same quality of life as an American.
From a perspective of China's place in the world - doing things cheaply is how they're getting so powerful. If a Chinese worker costs the same as a western worker then why would anyone bother investing in China when they can make stuff at home or in India or somewhere?
For those other countries the step up from being a middling nation to being a rich nation was much easier. There was plentiful room in the world for a few more rich people. Hong Kong and Singapore were small enough that transitioning to their modern state didnt leave much of an impact on the modern world.
With Japan things were a bit trickier, they had to do it through being so much more efficient than anyone else; but they were still small enough that it wasn:t too massive a move. And, their move into being solidly first world wasn't 100% succesful in the long term. Sure, to be born Japanese today is a good fate, even despite the lost decades Japan remains a good country to live in, but again...Japan is much smaller than China. And its collapse came in much friendlier worldwide economic times. Not where it was the only thing keeping the world propped up as China seems to be now.
Is there even room for 1 billion more westerners?
I just don:t think the world can take it. Even half that many would be tricky without first bringing Africa into productivity. And even then...they won't be happy being second class forever....
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 09:49:10 PMin doing so, they have fostered something like liberty, not to mention relative prosperity;
obsolete in this day and age. in the past under mao, sure, but not today. especially since china is more than willing to offer concessions as they did with hong kong
QuoteAnd why should other free states not protect them?
because it does not justify the problems that arise out of it, but that is a moot point. taiwan will likely be peacefully integrated into china this century
QuoteAnd Hong Kong should never have been returned.
silly
Which is obsolete? Liberty or prosperity? I think both are pretty important, even if prosperity seems to have been misplaced by my government.
And why is refusing to give back Hong Kong silly? We didn't give back Guantanamo. Russia didn't give back Kaliningrad.
HK is divided into 3 main parts, HK island, Kowloon, and the new territories. NT is the largest part of the 3, something like 70-80% of our land area. It also contains all our water supply and the majority of the population. Legally, NT was leased to the British for 99 years, until 1997. The Brits were treaty-bound to return NT to China in 1997. In theory they can just return NT and keep Kowloon and HK, but that is not feasible. HK cannot survive without NT. It'll be like cutting Manhatten off from the rest of New York and imposing border controls.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:03:34 PM
Which is obsolete? Liberty or prosperity? I think both are pretty important, even if prosperity seems to have been misplaced by my government.
the argument that they are independent, and should stay independent, because they are free from the clutches of evil communists. china is not evil in 2012, and it hasn't been for quite some time
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 09:49:10 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on April 02, 2012, 09:30:38 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 09:26:18 PMYou know what else were albatrosses? Poland in 1939 and the Philippines in 1941. COME ON.
not comparable. if southern china is part of china, or northwestern, then why not tibet. taiwan is a breakaway rebellious province that deserves to be brought back into the fold hong kong-style
Because we can't put the Seventh Fleet in the Himalayas. But we can defend the RoC (I guess technically we could defend Tibet too, with glorious airpower, but it would be much harder). The people of the RoC have chosen to resist diplomatic or forcible reunion with the mainland; in doing so, they have fostered something like liberty, not to mention relative prosperity; why do you think it necessary for them they circumscribed the freedoms they enjoy with a half-century contract with Beijing? And why should other free states not protect them? If you let a totalitarian empire attack the interests you value less, as you evidently do the happiness and well-being of twenty-three million people, they will only be stronger when they come for the interests you value more. Like when they destroy labor protections in an advanced economy.
And Hong Kong should never have been returned. The British abandoned their responsibility as a sovereign. If it had to be returned, it should have been returned to the legitimate government of China. At the least, they should have held a referendum and guaranteed vindication of its results.
If the Argentines had just asked nicely, apparently, it would have worked.
This. We have to accept the Chinese in Tibet. Nothing can be done about it. We don't have to accept the Reds in Taiwan. Besides, their claims on the island are kinda weak. Incidentally, Germany and Russia both saw Poland as break away territories in 1939. If the people of Taiwan want to join the mainland, that's swell. More power to them. The US is not going to stand by and have the issue forced on them by invading soldiers.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:03:34 PMAnd why is refusing to give back Hong Kong silly? We didn't give back Guantanamo. Russia didn't give back Kaliningrad.
because it reeks of poor consideration of global politics. britain is no longer an empire that lords over a third of the world's population, and china is no longer a weak country that routinely gets pillaged by the west. keeping hong kong, or demanding that it be left independent, would have been ruinous for british-chinese relations. and while you may not like china, and be all gung-ho over its destruction, it is a fairly important player in the global economy
Mono, Britain was bound by a treaty to the Qing, not to the PRC. The successor of the Qing, as recognized for nearly fifty years, was the Republic of China, currently based in Taipei.
I suspect they'd have let Britain keep it, since Britain is capable of defending it/avenging it against a belligerent mainland.
Quote from: LaCroixthe argument that they are independent, and should stay independent, because they are free from the clutches of evil communists. china is not evil in 2012, and it hasn't been for quite some time
They don't allow their people to vote; to have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, or creed; they kill people extrajudicially; they permit kleptocracy at local levels; they maintain their rule over a peaceful and unthreatening foreign nation through violence; they manipulate their currency to the detriment of the world economy; they ruin their environment and cause ecological problems for the entire human race; they have often diplomatically shielded the DPRK; they supported Serbia; they have permitted their citizens to attack foreign embassies; by developing longer-ranged missiles and a second strike capability, they seek the power to defend and expand their position as the rulers of an empire of tears against any liberator.
You have a very high bar for evil. What, does Hu Jintao have to build a second Death Star?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:03:34 PM
And why is refusing to give back Hong Kong silly?
Because I very much prefer my current situation, with my liberties intact and the economy prospering due to our relationship with China. I do not want to live in a devastated war zone blockaded by a great power with no hope of rescue just because somebody thinks that's cool.
Evil or not the Taiwanese should have the right to decide the fate of their own country. I also fail to see the good political sense in allowing the region to slide into war (Which is a very likely situation if the US withdrew it's support of Taiwan). Even if the US surrendered any responsibility for the area, the Taiwanese are unlikely to surrender. If China wanted it, it would likely need to do so by force. The Taiwanese have a decent chance of fighting of China all by itself.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 02, 2012, 10:12:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:03:34 PMAnd why is refusing to give back Hong Kong silly? We didn't give back Guantanamo. Russia didn't give back Kaliningrad.
because it reeks of poor consideration of global politics. britain is no longer an empire that lords over a third of the world's population, and china is no longer a weak country that routinely gets pillaged by the west. keeping hong kong, or demanding that it be left independent, would have been ruinous for british-chinese relations. and while you may not like china, and be all gung-ho over its destruction, it is a fairly important player in the global economy
I have never advocated PRChina's destruction. Lots of people live there, including at least three people whose unhappiness, let alone whose loss, would intensely sadden me.
I said they
will destruct. This is largely due to their own inept governance.
I have also said that in the case of a war with PRChina, we could win, but in that event the threat we pose--that is, the threat that we could inflict severe damage upon the PRC, far more severe than Hong Kong or Taiwan is worth, far more than their ruling class can endure, and far, far more than they can respond with--must be plausible; and, depending upon the exact situation, to which I am not privy, it may be wisest in such a situation to strike first, and deny the PRC its paltry nuclear "deterrent."
And, finally, I have said that it is worth the threat of war to protect the welfare of one's nationals and one's allies, which is widely considered legal, moral, and rational; although you seem to disagree.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:17:31 PM
You have a very high bar for evil. What, does Hu Jintao have to build a second Death Star?
Wouldn't that be a third Death Star? :nerd:
Quote from: Barrister on April 02, 2012, 10:27:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:17:31 PM
You have a very high bar for evil. What, does Hu Jintao have to build a second Death Star?
Wouldn't that be a third Death Star? :nerd:
Nah, I got it right. LaCroix didn't realize that the Empire were supposed to be the bad guys till Jedi. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:17:31 PMThey don't allow their people to vote; to have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, or creed; they kill people extrajudicially; they permit kleptocracy at local levels; they maintain their rule over a peaceful and unthreatening foreign nation through violence; they manipulate their currency to the detriment of the world economy; they ruin their environment and cause ecological problems for the entire human race; they have often diplomatically shielded the DPRK; they supported Serbia; they have permitted their citizens to attack foreign embassies; by developing longer-ranged missiles and a second strike capability, they seek the power to defend and expand their position as the rulers of an empire of tears against any liberator.
and in a paragraph one could make the united states sound pretty damn awful as well. china is still a developing country, and as the century progresses they will only become more open. the difference between now and under mao is extraordinary, and shows that china is on a progressive (if perhaps slow) path. as newer generations are born and age, and the older generations die, change will happen
treating them as some villain helps no one
Raz agree with Ide here. We don't throw our friends to the wolves just make a communist dictatorship happy.
Those of you talking about China's labour advantage... they're already losing it. If I want to get coding or art done for a game, I can get it in Vietnam for a third of the price I get the work done in China.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:25:41 PMI have never advocated PRChina's destruction. Lots of people live there, including at least three people whose unhappiness, let alone whose loss, would intensely sadden me.
I said they will destruct. This is largely due to their own inept governance.
I have also said that in the case of a war with PRChina, we could win, but in that event the threat we pose--that is, the threat that we could inflict severe damage upon the PRC, far more severe than Hong Kong or Taiwan is worth, far more than their ruling class can endure, and far, far more than they can respond with--must be plausible; and, depending upon the exact situation, to which I am not privy, it may be wisest in such a situation to strike first, and deny the PRC its paltry nuclear "deterrent."
And, finally, I have said that it is worth the threat of war to protect the welfare of one's nationals and one's allies, which is widely considered legal, moral, and rational; although you seem to disagree.
what do i disagree about? i've only said that taiwan will be peacefully integrated into china, and that it was not silly that hong kong was ceded back to china :huh:
and apologies over my comment re: gung-ho destruction against china. i must have mistook what you meant in previous threads where you've said we should bomb/nuke china
Quote from: LaCroixand in a paragraph one could make the united states sound pretty damn awful as well. china is still a developing country, and as the century progresses they will only become more open. the difference between now and under mao is extraordinary, and shows that china is on a progressive (if perhaps slow) path. as newer generations are born and age, and the older generations die, change will happen
treating them as some villain helps no one
We allow people to vote (with their ID cards :) ); permit the fundamental freedoms, except freedom from want but we're working on it; we rarely kill people extrajudicially, and at least we're pretty open about it when we do, and we discuss whether or not it's a bad idea; we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world, which is really pretty sad, but there you are; we don't manipulate our currency; we're pretty decent with our environment; we have chastised the DPRK; we bombed Serbia; no foreign embassy has ever been seriously threatened by a mob in our history, as far as I know, not even in World War II; our nuclear arms were developed for peaceful purposes.
I'll stop thinking of PRChina as a villain when they stop acting like one.
Anyone seeking to cede Taiwan to the inscrutable orientals is The Enemy
Taiwan is a capitalist democracy and the fifth Home Island, and it would be a loss for Democracy, Capitalism (and the people of Taiwan themselves) for their sovereignty to be surrendered to Beijing.
What worries me is that American promises to Taiwan are increasingly empty as its empire recedes and interventionism is discredited; Europe -surely- doesn't care about Taiwan, and Japan as yet lacks the spiritual resolve to take up its proper mantle as Taiwan's onee-sama. I am concerned for the future of Taiwan, and wish them well.
Anyone who wishes their union with China is selling them to the wolves for some spurious expediency.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 02, 2012, 10:36:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:25:41 PMI have never advocated PRChina's destruction. Lots of people live there, including at least three people whose unhappiness, let alone whose loss, would intensely sadden me.
I said they will destruct. This is largely due to their own inept governance.
I have also said that in the case of a war with PRChina, we could win, but in that event the threat we pose--that is, the threat that we could inflict severe damage upon the PRC, far more severe than Hong Kong or Taiwan is worth, far more than their ruling class can endure, and far, far more than they can respond with--must be plausible; and, depending upon the exact situation, to which I am not privy, it may be wisest in such a situation to strike first, and deny the PRC its paltry nuclear "deterrent."
And, finally, I have said that it is worth the threat of war to protect the welfare of one's nationals and one's allies, which is widely considered legal, moral, and rational; although you seem to disagree.
what do i disagree about? i've only said that taiwan will be peacefully integrated into china, and that it was not silly that hong kong was ceded back to china :huh:
Well, that's fine, but mustn't PRChina be a bit better, before they "should"? I feel like I'm missing a middle part of your argument. E.g., "When PRChina becomes a liberal democracy like the RoC, they should reunite," which would be unobjectionable.
Quoteand apologies over my comment re: gung-ho destruction against china. i must have mistook what you meant in previous threads where you've said we should bomb/nuke china
That's CdM. I am: more nuanced. -_-
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:17:31 PM
Mono, Britain was bound by a treaty to the Qing, not to the PRC. The successor of the Qing, as recognized for nearly fifty years, was the Republic of China, currently based in Taipei.
I suspect they'd have let Britain keep it, since Britain is capable of defending it/avenging it against a belligerent mainland.
The argument goes both ways. If the treaties are between the UK and the Qing only, then the communists need not honour them. Even from a mandate of heaven point of view, you can't keep the mandate while losing control of the bulk of the Chinese lands. The RoC is the successor of the Qing, but the PRC is the successor of RoC :contract:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:36:57 PMWe allow people to vote (with their ID cards :) ); permit the fundamental freedoms, except freedom from want but we're working on it; we rarely kill people extrajudicially, and at least we're pretty open about it when we do, and we discuss whether or not it's a bad idea; we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world, which is really pretty sad, but there you are; we don't manipulate our currency; we're pretty decent with our environment; we have chastised the DPRK; we bombed Serbia; no foreign embassy has ever been seriously threatened by a mob in our history, as far as I know, not even in World War II; our nuclear arms were developed for peaceful purposes.
I'll stop thinking of PRChina as a villain when they stop acting like one.
i meant from another perspective, not your own. i think it can be said that you are a bit biased here. i get it, you hate china and see them as a villain and so you'll be more likely to take little things here and there as evidence of their villainous nature. that doesn't mean they are actually a villain. china and the united states may have a bit of a rivalry going on, but that won't last forever
QuoteLaCroix didn't realize that the Empire were supposed to be the bad guys till Jedi.
if we're being insulting, then ide didn't realize real life isn't a some fantasy where sides are categorized as GOOD and BAD
Ide, I commend you on your moral rectitude for being a socialist johnny-on-the-dole who finds the wherewithal to ignore the siren lure of the inscrutable Chinese and their pernicious communist doctrines.
If you'd like, I will give you a sonnet in your honour :)
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:40:24 PMWell, that's fine, but mustn't PRChina be a bit better, before they "should"? I feel like I'm missing a middle part of your argument. E.g., "When PRChina becomes a liberal democracy like the RoC, they should reunite," which would be unobjectionable.
i think taiwan should unite as soon as possible, and feel the taiwanese would (at least eventually) be better off for it in terms of their own welfare and their economy. i do not think china to be evil, and the hong kong precedent proves integration can be very successful
Quote from: LaCroix on April 02, 2012, 10:42:27 PM
i meant from another perspective, not your own. i think it can be said that you are a bit biased here. i get it, you hate china and see them as a villain and so you'll be more likely to take little things here and there as evidence of their villainous nature. that doesn't mean they are actually a villain. china and the united states may have a bit of a rivalry going on, but that won't last forever
One thing I wish I had done is describe the PRC consistently as an "it," instead of a "they," and then when I listed the U.S. counterpoint described it as a "we." Because there is no real "we" in China. Nor is there a (capital) "I."
Do you see the PRC as representative of the Chinese people? If so, why so? If not, how do you justify its right to rule 1.3 billion people? If it has no such right, yet do so anyway, is the PRC not "evil" or at least "undesirable", at least as currently constituted?
And if it shows little signs of becoming a state that legitimately claims to represent the interests of all its people--and I disagree with you that it has, it has merely moved back to China's default state of quasi-rational administration-for-the-administrators, after a bout of ideology-driven psychosis--is it not obligatory to oppose it at every turn?
QuoteLaCroix didn't realize that the Empire were supposed to be the bad guys till Jedi.
if we're being insulting, then ide didn't realize real life isn't a some fantasy where sides are categorized as GOOD and BAD
I PUT A :P, DAMNIT.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 02, 2012, 10:46:00 PM
Ide, I commend you on your moral rectitude for being a socialist johnny-on-the-dole who finds the wherewithal to ignore the siren lure of the inscrutable Chinese and their pernicious communist doctrines.
If you'd like, I will give you a sonnet in your honour :)
I ain't on the dole. I make like $40,000 a year.
Right, no sonnet for Johnny-on-the-dole. Bite the hand that feeds all your life, will you? No wonder you're on the dole.
Anyhow, there seems to be some concern over who is and isn't evil, and I am happy to clear that up. Because everything is nuanced and delicate, there is a sliding scale. Green: The Good Guys
Purple: Mostly good but not among The Elect
Orange: don't trust these people
Red: Oh god its evil help
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdI2H9.png&hash=f7b93160db6b135a1b3f23c9b020f98cb25b5ecb)
Of course, many countries don't merit labeling for this discussion, so this is hardly all-inclusive. What is important is that it has been scientifically demonstrated that Taiwan would be downgraded two whole levels of Wholesomeness were it to fall into the depraved hands of Fu Manchu.
I just wish my job lasted all year. RIMSHOT.
What is Lettow on about now? Why is he making maps?
Neil used the Power Cosmic to fuse he and Tim together so as to create an ideal soldier in the neverending moderator-admin war against CdM.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:59:33 PM
I ain't on the dole. I make like $40,000 a year.
That's a very impressive salary :worthy:
Wage. -_- (Albeit one exempt under the FLSA, according to my employer, which is fine for now--although, seriously, I'm pretty sure it actually isn't.)
And I get to show up whenever I want, take breaks whenever I want, and leave whenever I want. Came in at quarter till one today. (Unfortunately, I forgot that they're closing the lab for stupid Christianity this weekend, so if I want to get my targeted 45-50 hours I have to do it before Saturday, and come in at like 7 a.m., which is bullshit, and, more practically, simply not happening).
The only real problems are that it's boring as shit and, like I said, that the project ends at some point in the next month or two (or tomorrow, really), and there's not necessarily a continuity between projects.
You know I still envy the hell out of you, right? :hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:58:12 PMIf so, why so? If not, how do you justify its right to rule 1.3 billion people? If it has no such right, yet do so anyway, is the PRC not "evil" or at least "undesirable", at least as currently constituted?
And if it shows little signs of becoming a state that legitimately claims to represent the interests of all its people--and I disagree with you that it has, it has merely moved back to China's default state of quasi-rational administration-for-the-administrators, after a bout of ideology-driven psychosis--is it not obligatory to oppose it at every turn?
because they are the legitimate and recognized government of the second most powerful nation in the world, and they know not to repeat the kaiser's mistake. they also do not seem to be slipping backward, but in fact are being more receptive in accepting progression. eventually their authoritarian style will erode away, and the average chinaman will have more liberties, but do we really want to alienate the entire nation before that happens through continuous pressure and hostility? we can help facilitate and encourage change better with friendship or at least respect than rivalry
Continuous pressure and hostility seemed to work for Japan.
At some point you must become aware Lacroix is a sinophile, no lover of liberty, a cold person who struggles to feel human empathy, and someone who relishes an argument for its own sake besides
it is disingenuous for him to speak of China becoming less evil or the chinamen having nicer things- he is simply in it to carry water for the odious forces of the PRC
Edit: I have been forced to break away with the Ide faction over the Japan issue. Equating Japan with the yellow hordes is intolerable, and even more so is whitewashing the despicable crimes of the cabal upon the potomac against the holy sacred isles
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 11:26:48 PM
Continuous pressure and hostility seemed to work for Japan.
there you go, advocating nuclear bombardment again ;)
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 02, 2012, 11:02:18 PM
Right, no sonnet for Johnny-on-the-dole. Bite the hand that feeds all your life, will you? No wonder you're on the dole.
Anyhow, there seems to be some concern over who is and isn't evil, and I am happy to clear that up. Because everything is nuanced and delicate, there is a sliding scale. Green: The Good Guys
Purple: Mostly good but not among The Elect
Orange: don't trust these people
Red: Oh god its evil help
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdI2H9.png&hash=f7b93160db6b135a1b3f23c9b020f98cb25b5ecb)
Of course, many countries don't merit labeling for this discussion, so this is hardly all-inclusive. What is important is that it has been scientifically demonstrated that Taiwan would be downgraded two whole levels of Wholesomeness were it to fall into the depraved hands of Fu Manchu.
Any map that recognizes god-damn porkchops as "the Good Guys" is no map I can recognize. :mad:
Also, Poland = Elect? For real?
I'm getting the urge to hit lettow. I should probably call it a night.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 11:17:53 PM
You know I still envy the hell out of you, right? :hug:
You envy someone who lives under a regime that you loath? ;)
Seriously, you should envy Lemonjello.
Well, the civil servant, fluent in two languages, married to a Chinese woman part.
I guess I can just be jealous of Jacob if you want. Two out of three ain't bad.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2012, 01:56:55 AM
Well, the civil servant, fluent in two languages, married to a Chinese woman part.
I guess I can just be jealous of Jacob if you want. Two out of three ain't bad.
Are you jealous of me?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 11:09:25 PM
Neil used the Power Cosmic to fuse he and Tim together so as to create an ideal soldier in the neverending moderator-admin war against CdM.
That's OK, I can summon the power of Grumbler the Grey's logical necromancy. YOU SHALL NOT POST
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2012, 01:56:55 AM
Well, the civil servant, fluent in two languages, married to a Chinese woman part.
I guess I can just be jealous of Jacob if you want. Two out of three ain't bad.
Meh, being jealous of Mono is about as compelling as hating on a brick wall. Nigga just don't click.
Now Jacob, that's a rat bastard your hate can sink its teeth into.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2012, 12:10:28 AM
Also, Poland = Elect? For real?
Sounds like a great place from Marty's posts. :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2012, 04:36:54 PM
One serious problem that China has to grapple with is their educational system. By some estimates, up to 70% of Chinese students are outside of the top 30%. I don't see that situation correcting itself any time soon.
Almost as bad as at least 49% of people being below average.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 02, 2012, 09:30:38 PM
not comparable. if southern china is part of china, or northwestern, then why not tibet. taiwan is a breakaway rebellious province that deserves to be brought back into the fold hong kong-style
There is no "back into the fold". Taiwan was never a part of the PRC.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 03, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 11:17:53 PM
You know I still envy the hell out of you, right? :hug:
You envy someone who lives under a regime that you loath? ;)
Seriously, you should envy Lemonjello.
Also, I'm not sure. I mean, there's totalitarianism and overcrowding and a horrible tonal language with the world's worst writing system, and then there's living in Florida.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2012, 05:36:41 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2012, 01:56:55 AM
Well, the civil servant, fluent in two languages, married to a Chinese woman part.
I guess I can just be jealous of Jacob if you want. Two out of three ain't bad.
Meh, being jealous of Mono is about as compelling as hating on a brick wall. Nigga just don't click.
Now Jacob, that's a rat bastard your hate can sink its teeth into.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2012, 05:36:41 AM
Meh, being jealous of Mono is about as compelling as hating on a brick wall. Nigga just don't click.
CdM is wise :yes:
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2012, 10:28:38 AM
Also, I'm not sure. I mean, there's totalitarianism and overcrowding and a horrible tonal language with the world's worst writing system, and then there's living in Florida.
I wish I lived in Florida. Tired of being cold six months of the year.
Quote from: Maximus on April 03, 2012, 09:36:18 AMThere is no "back into the fold". Taiwan was never a part of the PRC.
no where have i said PRC
Quote from: LaCroix on April 03, 2012, 12:01:24 PM
Quote from: Maximus on April 03, 2012, 09:36:18 AMThere is no "back into the fold". Taiwan was never a part of the PRC.
no where have i said PRC
They are already in China
Quote from: Maximus on April 03, 2012, 12:02:46 PMThey are already in China
it's a status not exactly firmly established. they are fairly independent
Yes, independent China.
The PRC has absolutely no claim to Taiwan other than "we wants it".
Not by self-determination
Not by history
Not by conquest(although I'm sure they'd like to)
Quote from: Maximus on April 03, 2012, 12:10:25 PM
Yes, independent China.
The PRC has absolutely no claim to Taiwan other than "we wants it".
Not by self-determination
Not by history
Not by conquest(although I'm sure they'd like to)
ROC is not
china, it is a breakaway chinese province that tries to maintain its own independence.
taiwan had previously been chinese for hundreds of years before japan annexed it in the late 19th. it became a chinese province when it was returned to china after the empire of japan's annihilation. that it was ROC troops that landed and established control means nothing
semantics won't work here: there are not two chinas, there is only one, and it exists on the mainland and has a government that currently calls itself the PRC. if you have trouble with this concept, imagine an analogy where a breakaway american state was created out of no where, and foreign powers hostile to the united states kept it alive for decades
Quote from: LaCroix on April 03, 2012, 12:21:11 PM
if you have trouble with this concept, imagine an analogy where a breakaway american state was created out of no where, and foreign powers hostile to the united states kept it alive for decades
Even you know that isn't an accurate analogy, Marti. :console:
Since we're doing Martiesque analogies, a better one would be if the US claimed rulership of Britain because they were now the true government of the English-speaking world.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 03, 2012, 12:21:11 PM
taiwan had previously been chinese for hundreds of years before japan annexed it in the late 19th. it became a chinese province when it was returned to china after the empire of japan's annihilation. that it was ROC troops that landed and established control means nothing
The Chinese Empire only ruled Taiwan since 1700 or so. Hundreds of years here being literally two hundred years. The only Chinese Government who has controlled Taiwan since then still control it today. I guess I fail to see the deep historical claim as some sort of integral part of China. Is this one of those 'wherever the Russian soldier goes is Mother Russia now' kind of deals?
Facts are what the Party says they are, comrades. I urge you to stop thinking too much on this matter. The official position of the Party cannot be questioned.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.geeknative.com.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fgeeknative.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2Fpope-vader.jpg&hash=3c528289a07c5aafa0e7dd9243f02f1d0dd05f61)
Those of you who claim that it is ludicrous to consider Taiwan part of China, how do you square that away with the long standing claim of the Taiwanese government to be the legitimate government of all of China?
I mean, personally I think that Taiwan's better off without the PRC, but I don't really think the issue is as clear cut as all that when there are significant portions of the Taiwanese population who consider themselves to be part of one China, even if they don't want any part of the CCP.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 01:16:49 PM
Those of you who claim that it is ludicrous to consider Taiwan part of China, how do you square that away with the long standing claim of the Taiwanese government to be the legitimate government of all of China?
Well you have to consider the fact that the PRC has been very belligerent about any suggestion coming from Taiwan that they are not a part of China. That "long standing claim" appears to exist out of sheer self-survival.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 01:16:49 PM
Those of you who claim that it is ludicrous to consider Taiwan part of China, how do you square that away with the long standing claim of the Taiwanese government to be the legitimate government of all of China?
I mean, personally I think that Taiwan's better off without the PRC, but I don't really think the issue is as clear cut as all that when there are significant portions of the Taiwanese population who consider themselves to be part of one China, even if they don't want any part of the CCP.
I consider it ludicrous that there is some sort of historically based justification that means I should support or consider it some sort of justice. But it is not ludicrous that China wants it and might succeed in taking it someday. I think the best play would be to negotiate some sort of deal like HK did, where everybody can basically continue as before but with tensions eased.
But as for the pretentions of the KMT well that was how Taiwan became part of China in the first place, by the Ming Dynasty fleeing there, booting out the Dutch, and creating a Chinese Government in exile. It would only be fitting I guess if history repeated itself.
I think they have legitimate claims on one another. That still doesn't mean it's wise to give the PRC carte blanche to try take over Taiwan. I suspect that Taiwanese wouldn't be keen on it, and very well may fight to prevent it. That means a war. I don't see how a war in East Asia helps the US much.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2012, 01:22:55 PM
I think they have legitimate claims on one another. That still doesn't mean it's wise to give the PRC carte blanche to try take over Taiwan. I suspect that Taiwanese wouldn't be keen on it, and very well may fight to prevent it. That means a war. I don't see how a war in East Asia helps the US much.
We've always been at war with Eastasia. :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 01:16:49 PM
Those of you who claim that it is ludicrous to consider Taiwan part of China, how do you square that away with the long standing claim of the Taiwanese government to be the legitimate government of all of China?
It's not ludicrous to consider Taiwan part of China. Taiwan is part of China. It is ludicrous to assume that means the PRC has a claim to it. The RoC at least has a historical claim to the mainland for whatever a historical claim is worth. The PRC doesn't even have that on Taiwan.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 03, 2012, 01:10:47 PM
pope-vader.jpg
That just made my motherfucking desktop.
Now I need a 27" by 40" print.
Speaking of American being too weak and stupid to deal with China:
QuoteFOR the last two months, senior government officials and private-sector experts have paraded before Congress and described in alarming terms a silent threat: cyberattacks carried out by foreign governments. Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I., said cyberattacks would soon replace terrorism as the agency's No. 1 concern as foreign hackers, particularly from China, penetrate American firms' computers and steal huge amounts of valuable data and intellectual property.
It's not hard to imagine what happens when an American company pays for research and a Chinese firm gets the results free; it destroys our competitive edge. Shawn Henry, who retired last Friday as the executive assistant director of the F.B.I. (and its lead agent on cybercrime), told Congress last week of an American company that had all of its data from a 10-year, $1 billion research program copied by hackers in one night. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, head of the military's Cyber Command, called the continuing, rampant cybertheft "the greatest transfer of wealth in history."
Yet the same Congress that has heard all of this disturbing testimony is mired in disagreements about a proposed cybersecurity bill that does little to address the problem of Chinese cyberespionage. The bill, which would establish noncompulsory industry cybersecurity standards, is bogged down in ideological disputes. Senator John McCain, who dismissed it as a form of unnecessary regulation, has proposed an alternative bill that fails to address the inadequate cyberdefenses of companies running the nation's critical infrastructure. Since Congress appears unable and unwilling to address the threat, the executive branch must do something to stop it.
In the past, F.B.I. agents parked outside banks they thought were likely to be robbed and then grabbed the robbers and the loot as they left. Catching the robbers in cyberspace is not as easy, but snatching the loot is possible.
General Alexander testified last week that his organization saw an inbound attack that aimed to steal sensitive files from an American arms manufacturer. The Pentagon warned the company, which had to act on its own. The government did not directly intervene to stop the attack because no federal agency believes it currently has the authority or mission to do so.
If given the proper authorization, the United States government could stop files in the process of being stolen from getting to the Chinese hackers. If government agencies were authorized to create a major program to grab stolen data leaving the country, they could drastically reduce today's wholesale theft of American corporate secrets.
Many companies do not even know when they have been hacked. According to Congressional testimony last week, 94 percent of companies served by the computer-security firm Mandiant were unaware that they had been victimized. And although the Securities and Exchange Commission has urged companies to reveal when they have been victims of cyberespionage, most do not. Some, including Sony, Citibank, Lockheed, Booz Allen, Google, EMC and the Nasdaq have admitted to being victims. The government-owned National Laboratories and federally funded research centers have also been penetrated.
Because it is fearful that government monitoring would be seen as a cover for illegal snooping and a violation of citizens' privacy, the Obama administration has not even attempted to develop a proposal for spotting and stopping vast industrial espionage. It fears a negative reaction from privacy-rights and Internet-freedom advocates who do not want the government scanning Internet traffic. Others in the administration fear further damaging relations with China. Some officials also fear that standing up to China might trigger disruptive attacks on America's vulnerable computer-controlled infrastructure.
But by failing to act, Washington is effectively fulfilling China's research requirements while helping to put Americans out of work. Mr. Obama must confront the cyberthreat, and he does not even need any new authority from Congress to do so.
Under Customs authority, the Department of Homeland Security could inspect what enters and exits the United States in cyberspace. Customs already looks online for child pornography crossing our virtual borders. And under the Intelligence Act, the president could issue a finding that would authorize agencies to scan Internet traffic outside the United States and seize sensitive files stolen from within our borders.
And this does not have to endanger citizens' privacy rights. Indeed, Mr. Obama could build in protections like appointing an empowered privacy advocate who could stop abuses or any activity that went beyond halting the theft of important files.
If Congress will not act to protect America's companies from Chinese cyberthreats, President Obama must.
Richard A. Clarke, the special adviser to the president for cybersecurity from 2001 to 2003, is the author of "Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It."
The only way companies are going to be protected by Chinese cyber bullshit is if they do it themselves; the US government simply doesn't have the intestinal fortitude.
My company has a tremendous amount of defensive cyber capability, but there's no stomach for utilizing offensive capabilities in dealing with the Advanced Persistent Threat (see, the fucking government won't even call China out by name, they're simply the APT); offensive capabilities would "interfere with the conduct of commerce." What bullshit.
Simply put, we're getting smoked by China on an unprecedented level, because nobody wants to acknowledge what's happening, or do anything about it.
And never mind the private sector, that's bad enough; where the Chinese are really raping us is at research universities.
Quote from: Maximus on April 03, 2012, 02:42:20 PM
It's not ludicrous to consider Taiwan part of China. Taiwan is part of China. It is ludicrous to assume that means the PRC has a claim to it.
I'm lost. What is the distinction being made between "China" and "the PRC"?
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2012, 01:22:16 PM
I think the best play would be to negotiate some sort of deal like HK did, where everybody can basically continue as before but with tensions eased.
Yuck. Taiwan's rather a different situation than HK. I'd imagine your best play would be disastrous for the Taiwanese.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 01:16:49 PM
I mean, personally I think that Taiwan's better off without the PRC, but I don't really think the issue is as clear cut as all that when there are significant portions of the Taiwanese population who consider themselves to be part of one China, even if they don't want any part of the CCP.
An increasing minority, given the aging of the KMT folk and the rise of the Democratic Progressive Party.
Regarding Lacroix's claims about it being Chinese- It is true is was ruled for a time by China, and was colonized by Chinese. The same is true for the Dutch. The people that did the most for the island and governed it with the greatest degree of genuine concern for the occupants' welfare remains Holy Sacred Japan, but this doesn't entitle Japan to annex Taiwan- independence is the best course for Taiwan.
China has no right to the island. The issue has been unhelpfully muddled by the domination of Taiwanese politics by KMT refugees, but that is a bygone era now.
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2012, 03:52:32 PM
Yuck. Taiwan's rather a different situation than HK. I'd imagine your best play would be disastrous for the Taiwanese.
Yeah? And why is that?
The Taiwanese have, over time, matured and progressed into their own nationality. They deserve to be recognized as their own nation.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 03, 2012, 03:52:44 PM
China has no right to the island. The issue has been unhelpfully muddled by the domination of Taiwanese politics by KMT refugees, but that is a bygone era now.
Um the KMT controls both Parliament and the Presidency.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2012, 03:57:06 PM
The Taiwanese have, over time, matured and progressed into their own nationality. They deserve to be recognized as their own nation.
Deserving has nothing to do with it.
Hey Money, I'm curious about the cyber attacks and thefts and so on... obviously it's going on on a big scale.
What could be done by companies to protect themselves? What could the US do to protect their companies?
Quote from: Kleves on April 03, 2012, 03:26:51 PM
Speaking of American being too weak and stupid to deal with China:
. . . Gen. Keith B. Alexander, head of the military's Cyber Command, called the continuing, rampant cybertheft "the greatest transfer of wealth in history."
Translation: my budget request is coming up soon.
Quote. Senator John McCain, who dismissed it as a form of unnecessary regulation, has proposed an alternative bill that fails to address the inadequate cyberdefenses of companies running the nation's critical infrastructure.
AFAICT - the distinction between the two bills is that the Lieberman bill delegates power to DHS, whereas the McCain bill relies on DOD and NSA.
QuoteBecause it is fearful that government monitoring would be seen as a cover for illegal snooping and a violation of citizens' privacy, the Obama administration has not even attempted to develop a proposal for spotting and stopping vast industrial espionage. It fears a negative reaction from privacy-rights and Internet-freedom advocates who do not want the government scanning Internet traffic. Others in the administration fear further damaging relations with China..
:huh:
The Obama admin is backing the same Lieberman bill lauded above. Who writes this stuff?
QuoteUnder Customs authority, the Department of Homeland Security could inspect what enters and exits the United States in cyberspace. Customs already looks online for child pornography crossing our virtual borders. And under the Intelligence Act, the president could issue a finding that would authorize agencies to scan Internet traffic outside the United States and seize sensitive files stolen from within our borders.
Ie vastly increase DHS cyber responsibilities without any increase in authorized budget, resources, personnel. Sharp thinking.
QuoteRichard A. Clarke, the special adviser to the president for cybersecurity from 2001 to 2003, is the author of "Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It."
Translation - I haven't had a real job for 10 years and now I make my living hawking scare stories to the public to sell books.
Here's the truth about Chinese industrial espionage - it is rampant. And it turns out that the biggest method for gathering information is not cyber penetration from the outside but infiltrating moles into US companies who walk at the doors with USB drives and file folders. The old fashioned way. It further turns out that while this is indeed a problem, it is not as significant as one might think, because most Chinese companies don't have the capability to take blueprints and raw data and convert to advanced proprietary production techniques without extensive training and highly skilled personnel. Thus, the principal way Chinese companies have succeeded in making actual use of advanced Western technology and methods is by dangling the prospect (mirage?) of the vast Chinese market in front of growth-hungry Western companies and convincing them
voluntarily not only to transfer over technology, but to spend years training Chinese personnel on how to make use of it. The exploitation of Japanese bullet train technology being a classic example.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2012, 03:58:17 PM
Um the KMT controls both Parliament and the Presidency.
That's true, but that does little to detract from the fact that the KMT is in overall decline. They are on the wane- the DPP will be back in no time. The brief renaissance of KMT power has more to do with it being the way to express discontent with the DPP's first effort at ruling, which they mismanaged a bit. They aren't used to being a party in power, but they'll get the hang of it. History and demographics are on their side, or rather, the KMT is on the wrong side of history.
(again)
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2012, 03:56:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2012, 03:52:32 PM
Yuck. Taiwan's rather a different situation than HK. I'd imagine your best play would be disastrous for the Taiwanese.
Yeah? And why is that?
As Seedy mentioned, they've matured into their own state and have shown that they are better off living independently of the mainland (not to mention that we are also better off for them being independent). What you speak of is frankly a surrender.
And the thought of the PLA getting their hands on all that Western equipment makes me want to vomit.
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2012, 04:26:16 PM
As Seedy mentioned, they've matured into their own state and have shown that they are better off living independently of the mainland (not to mention that we are also better off for them being independent). What you speak of is frankly a surrender.
I was thinking more on the lines of a compromise of some sort that would leave Taiwan able to govern itself as it has. A negotiated solution. Is there any alternative besides complete independence not a surrender in your mind?
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2012, 01:04:19 PMThe Chinese Empire only ruled Taiwan since 1700 or so. Hundreds of years here being literally two hundred years. The only Chinese Government who has controlled Taiwan since then still control it today.
roughly 1680ish iirc until.. 1895. i knew the time frame when i said hundreds of years. the united states has owned hawaii for less than that, yet i think many would consider it to be an integral part of the country. that another nation occupied taiwan for.. what, fifty years? doesn't really mean anything at all
QuoteI guess I fail to see the deep historical claim as some sort of integral part of China.
because both governments are china; there is only one china, and the winners of the civil war, the group in charge of around 98% of its population, has more legitimacy than the other. that losers from a civil war still remain in control over a territory should not somehow make it not chinese
Quote from: MaximumSince we're doing Martiesque analogies, a better one would be if the US claimed rulership of Britain because they were now the true government of the English-speaking world.
that's not what i'm saying at all. i have not brought language into this discussion. that both use the same language means nothing, for obvious reasons
QuoteIt's not ludicrous to consider Taiwan part of China. Taiwan is part of China. It is ludicrous to assume that means the PRC has a claim to it. The RoC at least has a historical claim to the mainland for whatever a historical claim is worth. The PRC doesn't even have that on Taiwan.
PRC is china, and if it collapses and another government forms in its wake--one that controls the mainland--then that government will also be china
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 04:05:44 PM
Hey Money, I'm curious about the cyber attacks and thefts and so on... obviously it's going on on a big scale.
What could be done by companies to protect themselves? What could the US do to protect their companies?
Funding would help. Not every company has the money to do it themselves. And education, because some companies are their own worst enemies about it. Spending money on national security doesn't increase shareholder value.
That's where regulatory enforcement comes in. That's what NERC has been doing with the energy sector for the last several years. Don't want to spend the money protecting your assets, which happen to be important to the rest of the country? Fine; you'll pay through the regulatory nose.
DHS has begun reaching out to certain sectors involving the supply chain regarding technology, because so much firmware is coming from overseas.
Universities are the worst, though. No real protection for intellectual property at all. Academia simply doesn't believe in it. Out to lunch.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 03, 2012, 04:37:18 PM
roughly 1680ish iirc until.. 1895. i knew the time frame when i said hundreds of years. the united states has owned hawaii for less than that, yet i think many would consider it to be an integral part of the country. that another nation occupied taiwan for.. what, fifty years? doesn't really mean anything at all
The United States has controlled lots of territories for less than that. If Hawaii was governed by a popularly supported government for 50 years I would think that would mean something very significant and I would think any attempt to recover our integral territory or whatever to be act of aggression. But maybe you disagree. Spain controlled Cuba for twice as long as China controlled Taiwan perhaps they would be justified in invading?
Quotebecause both governments are china; there is only one china, and the winners of the civil war, the group in charge of around 98% of its population, has more legitimacy than the other. that losers from a civil war still remain in control over a territory should not somehow make it not chinese
But that is not a historical claim that is based on present circumstances. And I guess I fail to see how sharing an ethnicity with another political entity gives that entity a historical right to seize control over you.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2012, 04:32:27 PM
I was thinking more on the lines of a compromise of some sort that would leave Taiwan able to govern itself as it has. A negotiated solution.
I really can't see the PRC going for that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2012, 04:08:42 PM
Here's the truth about Chinese industrial espionage - it is rampant. And it turns out that the biggest method for gathering information is not cyber penetration from the outside but infiltrating moles into US companies who walk at the doors with USB drives and file folders. The old fashioned way. It further turns out that while this is indeed a problem, it is not as significant as one might think, because most Chinese companies don't have the capability to take blueprints and raw data and convert to advanced proprietary production techniques without extensive training and highly skilled personnel. Thus, the principal way Chinese companies have succeeded in making actual use of advanced Western technology and methods is by dangling the prospect (mirage?) of the vast Chinese market in front of growth-hungry Western companies and convincing them voluntarily not only to transfer over technology, but to spend years training Chinese personnel on how to make use of it. The exploitation of Japanese bullet train technology being a classic example.
We fire people over possession of USB drives. But I think we're the exception.
The Chinese ability to acquire information is also tremendously low tech, but it works. And speaking from my own personal experience at
<insert major international science and medical institution here>, they're doing it the old-fashioned way: with people. If it's not nailed down, it's uploaded.
I'd see dozens of PRC passports a month at
<insert major international science and medical institution here>, and guess what? The simple fact is that none of them were going there to become better trauma surgeons, or pediatricians or anesthesiologists. The PRC students are all going there for the techie stuff in the three realms: pharmacology, biomedical engineering and genetic research. Anything that has a technological base that can impact commerce and competitiveness. Anything that had compartmental knowledge, that could conceivably be used in other industries back home.
And when we'd catch them uploading gigabytes in the middle of the night from computers in the Billing Department, something's not kosher.
Of the several incidents of unauthorized computer use on campus we'd receive a month--the ones departments even bothered reporting--they weren't involving Dutch students, or Brazilian students, or Pakistani, or even Indian and Russian students. The individuals involved all had PRC passports.
Anecdotal yes, but also based in statistical reality.
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2012, 04:46:51 PMI really can't see the PRC going for that.
It has so far :)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2012, 05:06:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 05:04:56 PMIt has so far :)
Taiwan on the other hand, has not.
Uhm... yes they have. They haven't declared themselves an independent nation, distinct from China.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 05:07:57 PM
They haven't declared themselves an independent nation, distinct from China.
Not yet. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 05:07:57 PM
Uhm... yes they have. They haven't declared themselves an independent nation, distinct from China.
Of course. They are China. :P
Quote from: Monoriu on April 02, 2012, 11:11:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2012, 10:59:33 PM
I ain't on the dole. I make like $40,000 a year.
That's a very impressive salary :worthy:
No it isn't. Your parking space costs more than that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2012, 05:10:22 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 05:07:57 PM
They haven't declared themselves an independent nation, distinct from China.
Not yet. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
Yeah... if they do do that, then that's their choice to make. Likely not a smart move, and one that'll cause a lot of pain to all sorts of people, but it's their call. If the people of Quebec or Scotland or Texas or where ever want self-determination, then I generally think it's their right even if it may not be in their best interest.
That said, I don't think the PRC's claim is spurious at all, though I don't think it supersedes the will of the people of Taiwan if push comes to shove.
Realistically, I think the PRC are going to keep playing a long and mostly soft game - get Taiwan as integrated economically with the mainland that the economic and political elites of the country stand to lose too much from pissing off the PRC; so, reunification by inches and persuasion, basically. Of course, lots of things can happen before that comes to fruition, but I think it's probably the least harmful outcome beyond maintaining the status quo. As for Taiwan declaring full on formal indepence... they'll have to pick their moment right for it to work out, that's about the most I can say.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 05:07:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2012, 05:06:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 05:04:56 PMIt has so far :)
Taiwan on the other hand, has not.
Uhm... yes they have. They haven't declared themselves an independent nation, distinct from China.
They seem to be happy where they are. PRC overtures to reunite haven't had much traction in RoC.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2012, 06:40:52 PMThey seem to be happy where they are. PRC overtures to reunite haven't had much traction in RoC.
Yup, and who can blame them?
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 06:53:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2012, 06:40:52 PMThey seem to be happy where they are. PRC overtures to reunite haven't had much traction in RoC.
Yup, and who can blame them?
Apparently V-dawg and LaAsshat.
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2012, 07:00:54 PMApparently V-dawg and LaAsshat.
I haven't seen either of them argue against the current, unresolved status quo.
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2012, 07:00:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 06:53:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2012, 06:40:52 PMThey seem to be happy where they are. PRC overtures to reunite haven't had much traction in RoC.
Yup, and who can blame them?
Who?
Apparently V-dawg and LaAsshat.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2012, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2012, 07:00:54 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 06:53:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2012, 06:40:52 PMThey seem to be happy where they are. PRC overtures to reunite haven't had much traction in RoC.
Yup, and who can blame them?
Who?
Apparently V-dawg and LaAsshat.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2012, 07:02:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2012, 07:00:54 PMApparently V-dawg and LaAsshat.
I haven't seen either of them argue against the current, unresolved status quo.
Goddamn it! You are both going on the list.
Damn. You said the same thing in the other thread.
Quote from: LaCroix on April 03, 2012, 12:21:11 PM
Quote from: Maximus on April 03, 2012, 12:10:25 PM
Yes, independent China.
The PRC has absolutely no claim to Taiwan other than "we wants it".
Not by self-determination
Not by history
Not by conquest(although I'm sure they'd like to)
ROC is not china, it is a breakaway chinese province that tries to maintain its own independence.
taiwan had previously been chinese for hundreds of years before japan annexed it in the late 19th. it became a chinese province when it was returned to china after the empire of japan's annihilation. that it was ROC troops that landed and established control means nothing
semantics won't work here: there are not two chinas, there is only one, and it exists on the mainland and has a government that currently calls itself the PRC. if you have trouble with this concept, imagine an analogy where a breakaway american state was created out of no where, and foreign powers hostile to the united states kept it alive for decades
I've come to accept Canada's right to exist.
Quote from: Maximus on April 03, 2012, 12:49:03 PM
Since we're doing Martiesque analogies, a better one would be if the US claimed rulership of Britain because they were now the true government of the English-speaking world.
OK I've changed my mind. They can have Taiwan, but we get other islands of importance.
What islands do you want?
Great Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Shetlands, etc.
Oh, and Australia, Tasmania, North & South Islands, Prince Edward Island...
So a bunch of cold and inhospitable places?
Pass.
LaCroix made the list.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 03, 2012, 10:54:47 PM
So a bunch of cold and inhospitable places?
Pass.
The problem with taking warm islands is they're full of undesirables like Tim, Lusti and Funk. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2012, 09:39:50 PM
I've come to accept Canada's right to exist.
Bah, let Quebec secede, let everything else petition for US statehood and make it all a bunch of National Parks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2012, 05:36:41 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2012, 01:56:55 AM
Well, the civil servant, fluent in two languages, married to a Chinese woman part.
I guess I can just be jealous of Jacob if you want. Two out of three ain't bad.
Meh, being jealous of Mono is about as compelling as hating on a brick wall. Nigga just don't click.
Now Jacob, that's a rat bastard your hate can sink its teeth into.
Okay, this post came back to me so I have to ask... why me? There are guys who make more money and/or get laid more. It can't be fluency in Danish (:lol:). Am I really that much more of a smug condescending bastard than anyone else here? Because the competition is pretty stiff.
Quote from: Jacob on April 04, 2012, 12:13:22 AM
Am I really that much more of a smug condescending bastard than anyone else here? Because the competition is pretty stiff.
:yeahright:
I love ya Jake -but you're the Languish King of condescending bastards.
Quote from: Jacob on April 04, 2012, 12:13:22 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2012, 05:36:41 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2012, 01:56:55 AM
Well, the civil servant, fluent in two languages, married to a Chinese woman part.
I guess I can just be jealous of Jacob if you want. Two out of three ain't bad.
Meh, being jealous of Mono is about as compelling as hating on a brick wall. Nigga just don't click.
Now Jacob, that's a rat bastard your hate can sink its teeth into.
Okay, this post came back to me so I have to ask... why me? There are guys who make more money and/or get laid more. It can't be fluency in Danish (:lol:). Am I really that much more of a smug condescending bastard than anyone else here? Because the competition is pretty stiff.
You date more Asian chicks and are one of the few men with better hair than me. What, you need more reasons than that?
Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2012, 12:16:59 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 04, 2012, 12:13:22 AM
Am I really that much more of a smug condescending bastard than anyone else here? Because the competition is pretty stiff.
:yeahright:
I love ya Jake -but you're the Languish King of condescending bastards.
You're not too shabby yourself, Crown Prince Persecutor. :P
BB's possibly the least condescending Canuck here. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2012, 12:36:32 AM
BB's possibly the least condescending Canuck here. :hmm:
All Canucks, by their very nature, are condescending. It's part of their European monarchist heritage.
And besides, they're up there all the time, above us, looking down.
CC is pretty condescending. It must be the drugs in Vancouver's water.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2012, 05:03:11 PM
The Chinese ability to acquire information is also tremendously low tech, but it works. And speaking from my own personal experience at <insert major international science and medical institution here>, they're doing it the old-fashioned way: with people. If it's not nailed down, it's uploaded.
That's consistent from what I've read and heard from attorneys representing companies that do business in China and have had problem with trade secrets theft. And the conclusion I draw is that before writing out a blank check with space for 11 figures and hand over vast unchecked authority to federal cyber commands, we should consider how effective that effort is likely to be when it all can be circumvented by some guy walking in and out of an open door.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2012, 12:36:32 AM
BB's possibly the least condescending Canuck here. :hmm:
-_-
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2012, 07:00:54 PM
Apparently V-dawg and LaAsshat.
If you say so g-dawg.
I thought G-dawg was grumbler. :unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2012, 09:07:23 AM
I thought G-dawg was grumbler. :unsure:
We really need to let Yi pick the nicknames. Surely we can do better than G-dawg for grumbler.
Nicknames are kind of superfluous anyway, as our handles are already nicknames. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2012, 09:23:33 AM
Nicknames are kind of superfluous anyway, as our handles are already nicknames. :hmm:
Peter is your nickname?
I can see it now 'now batting for the White Sox 'Peter' Joe Jackson'.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 04, 2012, 12:11:02 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2012, 09:39:50 PM
I've come to accept Canada's right to exist.
Bah, let Quebec secede, let everything else petition for US statehood and make it all a bunch of National Parks.
Why would we want to submit ourselves to the jurisdiction of your political system? We'd never inflict that on ourselves.
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 09:30:44 AM
Peter is your nickname?
Well, more commonly Eddie. Neither is my real name.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 04, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 09:30:44 AM
Peter is your nickname?
Well, more commonly Eddie. Neither is my real name.
Man I am so very confused. Who is Eddie Teach really? What sort of perverse sociological game is he playing with us? What do names and identities really mean?
Quote from: Valmy on April 04, 2012, 10:37:16 AM
What sort of perverse sociological game is he playing with us?
:ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on April 04, 2012, 12:16:59 AM:yeahright:
I love ya Jake -but you're the Languish King of condescending bastards.
I like to think of it more as "first among equals."