ForumGarden

couple of contrasting british takes on the US economy.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/db2451f2-83bf-1 ... e2340.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... inion.html

i've read everything on this thread, it's all very scary; but, the masses will be forced to try and hold on to the big dogs tail for dear life.

Scrat;489999 wrote: I can't see China doing it. We are still her major consumer. The Mid East and Russia give her the energy her industry needs and America buys what she makes.



She can shuck the Saudis, Russia in the next few years will gladly sell her all the energy she can get from the ground. Several projects are still in the works. Not to mention the other central asian countries and Venezuala.







They may be in for a surprise. She is not a naval power like the US but she makes good weapons cheap. It's not Chinese soldiers OPEC should be worried about.



China is building aircraft carriers and her airforce is well on its way to being top of the line. A change to a global military contender is at least a decade out though.
Famous last words! I think they not only can, but will. Now is a good time to buy a house cheap, in the US! hehehehe

Interesting you all asume it would automatically lead to warfare. Any war between china and the US would very soon become nuclear.

OPEC wil sell it's oil to whoever can buy it. Oil is traded in dollars there's no reason why it couldn't be sold in another currency.

China might be tempted to do it just to wreck the US economy. Why should they not?

Its just saber rattling, must be a trade round coming up. Its true that the US Administration is running a very large deficit and the cost of the Iraq war is only going to really become apparent in the next 10 years. But as a caution I would remind you that it is China's own interest that the U.S. economy remains capable producing consumers who will buy all those nice things that the Chinese make. Europe by itself wouldn't consume nearly enough to let the Chinese to continue to grow at the rate they have been for the past 15 years, the Arabs don't have a large enough market, and everyone else is too poor.

So China needs the US to keep on consuming, but it also recognizes that if the U.S. administration doesn't do something to put its finances in order, then China's prosperity is threatened, therefore they are giving the Americans a little warning to make them sharpen up their economic act, which they will, once they manage to come up with some cockamamie idea of how to get out of Iraq pronto and stop wasting so much money on that particular waste of time, that will also suit the Iranians and Syrians, and the US can look all reasonable by basically handing Iraq over to whoever wants to deal with it. The US will continue to support Israel, they will abandon Iraq, they will make cuts in their domestic spending, and the Dollar will weaken a little more, and stabilize somewhere round the 60-70 euro-cents to the dollar. Cynical perhaps, but thats what is going to happen.

Is there anyone who wants to deal with Iraq?

Uncle Kram;490556 wrote: Is there anyone who wants to deal with Iraq?


Saddam perhaps?

Bryn Mawr;490581 wrote: Saddam perhaps?:wah:

posted by scrat
Nope it, would not become nuclear. That is the one thing the Chinese fear most they are the most vulnerable to it. Why do you think they have not grabbed Siberia from Russia and buy the oil instead of taking it? Because Russia has the means to stop not only Chinas military, she also has the means to kill 90% of the population for very little cost.

China is vulnerable in that respect.

A more limited conventional conflict with the US is very likely on the oceans which China needs to be able to control for her economic security.


can't say I agree with you there. If it came to a shooting war it would either stop very quickly or escalate very rapidly. There is no way imo that china would back down of threatened with a nuclear strike and would probably call the bluff and then it would become nuclear-or not. Russia is hardly likely to sit back and do nothing. any nuclear strike will affect us all. Please reassure me no one in the ststes is talking about limited nuclear war being winable.

I too think galbally has the right of it.

But why assume it will inevitably lead to war? That is a last resort when all else fails.

Came across these quote from Mao-I was actually looking for the one about paper tigers and got distracted.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... k/ch06.htm

U.S. imperialism invaded China's territory of Taiwan and has occupied it for the past nine years. A short while ago it sent its armed forces to invade and occupy Lebanon. The United States has set up hundreds of military bases in many countries all over the world. China's territory of Taiwan, Lebanon and all military bases of the United States on foreign soil are so many nooses round the neck of U.S. imperialism. The nooses have been fashioned by the Americans themselves and by nobody else, and it is they themselves who have put these nooses round their own necks, handing the ends of the ropes to the Chinese people, the peoples of the Arab countries and all the peoples of the world who love peace and oppose aggression. The longer the U.S. aggressors remain in those places, the tighter the nooses round their necks will become.

Speech at the Supreme State Conference (September 8, 1958).

Imperialism will not last long because it always does evil things. It persists in grooming and supporting reactionaries in all countries who are against the people, it has forcibly seized many colonies and semi-colonies and many military bases, and it threatens the peace with atomic war. Thus, forced by imperialism to do so, more than 90 per cent of the people of the world are rising or will rise in struggle against it. Yet, imperialism is still alive, still running amuck in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In the West imperialism is still oppressing the people at home. This situation must change. It is the task of the people of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by imperialism, and chiefly by U.S. imperialism.

Interview with a Hsinhua News Agency correspondent (September 29, 1958).

Riding roughshod everywhere, U.S. imperialism has made itself the enemy of the people of the world and has increasingly isolated itself. The atom bombs and hydrogen bombs in the hands of the U.S. imperialists will never cow those who refuse to be enslaved. The raging tide of the people of the world against the U.S. aggressors is irresistible. Their struggle against U.S. imperialism and its lackeys will assuredly win still greater victories.

"Statement Supporting the Panamanian People's Just Patriotic Struggle Against U.S. Imperialism" (January 12, 1964), People of the World, Unite and Defeat the U.S. Aggressors and All Their Lackeys, 2nd ed., pp. 9-10.


Look at the date.

This too is contemporary

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presi ... wer001.htm

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.


Be interesting to see if the US voters can rein in GW and his ilk before they start something more serious than Iraq.

Diuretic;492509 wrote: W should be removed from office, seriously. I'm not spouting partisan rubbish here, I'm all for elections as the decider of executive and government but when someone can't do the job then you sack them for incompetence. Bush is incompetent. Bush should be sacked.


I thouight congress could remove him? I don't know the ins and outs of teh US political system. In the UK it's parliament-TB rules at their whim but MOP's seem to have forgotten that. I suspect if he hadn't saif he was leaving next year he would have been ousted by now. Even the thickest labour MP must realise the damage he is doing to the party.

Diuretic;492953 wrote: I think it's the Senate that votes for impeachment and I believe it requires a substantial majority, something like 60% or 80% of the Senate. Then the case has to be heard.

In the Westminster system, from memory, the PM is only recognised by convention (although that could have been changed I suppose). Labour is cactus thanks to Blair. A shame but from this distance it looks as if they're going to be ousted at the next general election.

Any corrections to the above gratefully received.


You're right enough. The PM is not elected but is usually the leader of the largest party or the one that can form a coalition in a hung parliament. Unlike a president he is not elected and rules only at the will of parliament.

The idea that the departing leader gets to choose his successor is a novel one to the labour party. The next election might actually be interesting. The only reason labour are in power are due to the vegaries ofthe first past the post system. the electorate actually rejected TB and his policies.

Scrat;493412 wrote: I don't think this instance will cause conflict, the Chinese are not stupid. They will wait and bide their time, America is rotting from within. One of these days though she will step out of the noose we have her in.


I agree, though I think that the term "rotting from within" is a bit loaded, there are plenty of clever people in the U.S. who understand that America's strength is based on her economy, not military might (i.e. once the soviets ran out of money, they also quickly ran out of steam). Whenever the U.S. administration wastes Americans' wealth on foolish foreign wars that do not benefit the U.S. they do weaken the country both politically, and economically (as has been the case in Iraq). I think that many Americans are waking up to that reality, and that the Republicans realize they have allowed the current administration to weaken both the party and the country with its unwise policies on Iraq. There are of course other issues, but that is the most obvious case of bad judgment.

In terms of world trade, its better that everyone trades and is as prosperous as possible, that includes China, India, Europe, Russia, Japan, the U.S., and the emerging countries, conflict in general is (apart from being terrible in its own right), also horrendously expensive and very disruptive to world trade and international systems of law upon which world trade are regulated. Sometimes wars can be shown to be economically beneficial in the medium term to the victors (and are also of course sometimes unavoidable as a mutual disagreement can sometimes not be amenable to politics), but as a general rule peace, and the use of law (as opposed to force) to arbitrate differences is good for trade and long-term prosperity for everyone (the EU is of course a good example of this principal), whether world peace will actually break out soon remains an open question.