The Waking Dragon!!!!!!!!
Pave_Hawk
along the lines of:
Personally i think the Western world, including such nations as the UK,
Germany and the US has more to fear in the coming future, politically and
militarily, not from the resurgent and violent actions of Osama and Co., and
other such organisations world-wide, but more from the waking Dragon that is
The People's Republic of China.
Whilst she is not in her prime, economically and militarily, at the present
time, in what state would she be, say, 10-20 years from now??
She has a burgening economy, has relaxed the old Communist system so as to
adapt to the modern Capatalist economic system and reap it's many benefits,
has the world's largets standing army, plus the ability and will to pump it
full of cash without taking the heat from the 'voting' population.
We must also accept that no government, at the present time has the balls
to, or will, pardon the French, tell them in no uncertain terms to either
keep their hands of Taiwan or else, or relax the existing internal laws
relating to human rights, or none there-of.
Now i'm not saying that we should take such drastic measures now, as there
is obviously no need to, but if the dragon does not realise that she could
be treated this way if she took such actions as to, for example, make an
agressive military move on Taiwan, then what is essentially stopping her
from doing it?
It is that she is biding her time, until the playing field is advantageous
to her or at least even!!!!
Ed Frank
may "succeed" to the extent that Chinese parents might
not be willing to risk their one-and-onlies for the
doubtful benefit of having one flag flying over the
mainland and the islands.
Ed Frank
Jim Garner
> Hey guys, i'd like to have your thoughts on my little pet theory. It goes
> along the lines of:
>
> Personally i think the Western world, including such nations as the UK,
> Germany and the US has more to fear in the coming future, politically and
> militarily, not from the resurgent and violent actions of Osama and Co., and
> other such organisations world-wide, but more from the waking Dragon that is
> The People's Republic of China.
An interesting theory. Consider also this:
In 1688 we can see by hindsight that Britain would become the world's
primary sea power and thus the dominant power in the world. Given the
circs of 1588 onward, this now looks to have been almost inevitable. . . .
In 1900 we can see by hindsight that the United States would become the
world's dominant economic power and thus the dominant power (period) in
the world. Given the circumstances of 1900, this now looks to have
been almost inevitable . . . .
In 2000 China is rapidly becoming the workshop of the world. I am forever
buying furniture, clothing, electronic goods etc etc and reading "made in
China" on the labels. China, having adopted capitalism, is beating the
capitalist countries of the world at their own game. If China supplants
the US as the world's dominant economic power, will dominance in all
spheres, possibly including military, follow?
China will not necessarily continue to be even nominally Communist and
there is no real indication she will become expansionist, except for
Taiwan (which is a minor detail in the grand scheme of things).
But does anyone feel that sense of inevitability that characterized the
early years of the British raj and the American Empire?
--
Jim Garner, sage and dogsbody. an...@ncf.ca (filtered, see below).
E-mail is deleted unless subject line includes "GRAN"
(613) 526-4786; 759B Springland, Ottawa, ON K1V 6L9 Canada
"VISA soit qui mall y pense"
William Black
Jim Garner <an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:ac3nbq$pet$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> But does anyone feel that sense of inevitability that characterized the
> early years of the British raj and the American Empire?
I don't think anyone at the time thought there was any inevitability about
either rise.
After 1688 the British lost one empire and gained another. But it didn't
all become stable and secure until after Waterloo. Before then there was
hard fighting all the way.
Same with the USA. It wasn't really apparent to anyone until the atom bomb
went off that the USA was a world power. Before then the USA looked like
any other one of 'the powers'.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Hindsight is a wonderful thing
Alan Allport
news:ac3nbq$pet$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> But does anyone feel that sense of inevitability that characterized the
> early years of the British raj and the American Empire?
There is nothing more inevitable to the mind's eye than something that has
already happened.
Alan.
Scott D. Orr
<tobyfr...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>Hey guys, i'd like to have your thoughts on my little pet theory. It goes
>along the lines of:
>
>Personally i think the Western world, including such nations as the UK,
>Germany and the US has more to fear in the coming future, politically and
>militarily, not from the resurgent and violent actions of Osama and Co., and
>other such organisations world-wide, but more from the waking Dragon that is
>The People's Republic of China.
>
>Whilst she is not in her prime, economically and militarily, at the present
>time, in what state would she be, say, 10-20 years from now??
I think this is a legitimate worry: China's military power, in the
sense of being able to fight beyond its own borders, is not very great
at the present point, but with a larger economy and the ability to
manufacture high-tech goods at reasonable cost (which is something
China can't do at the moment, no matter how much technology it
steals). And given its large population, China will reach a point at
which its economy is formidable (in gross, anyway) at some point
before it reaches the point where it's rich enough that it becomes
democratic ($5,000 per capita or so, but sometimes it doesn't happen
until $10,000).
>
>She has a burgening economy, has relaxed the old Communist system so as to
>adapt to the modern Capatalist economic system and reap it's many benefits,
>has the world's largets standing army, plus the ability and will to pump it
>full of cash without taking the heat from the 'voting' population.
That last is not exactly true: even an authoritarian country faces
domestic political imperatives. The difference is that in a
democracy, the public's desires are much more powerful, the power of
the people is more broadly distributed, and the demands tend more to
be for things that help everyone rather than particular people and
interests. If things get really bad, even the peasants will withdraw
their support of the government, and long before that urban-dwellers
would pose a direct threat (urban-dwellers can organize more easily,
and they're close to the center of power). But quite apart from
anything so dramatic, the government of such a huge country as China
has thousands or hundreds of thousands of Communist Party leaders
whose opinions must be considered directly or indirectly, and warfare
may not be in the interests of most of them.
>We must also accept that no government, at the present time has the balls
>to, or will, pardon the French, tell them in no uncertain terms to either
>keep their hands of Taiwan or else...
We have essentially done this--the diplomatic code words we use to do
it are often misunderstood by the public, but I don't think China will
mistake our intentions (though I wouldn't mind making them even
clearer--there's a certain cultural arrogance on the part of the
Chinese in international affairs, combined with little experience in
the realm [because of China's long isolationism], that sometimes
leads them to misinterpret things that would damage their self-image
as a great power).
>...or relax the existing internal laws relating to human rights, or none there-of.
We _can't_ really do this, because it's not something the Chinese can
do: you can't respect human rights in an authoritarian system without
bringing down the system. For that matter, many people who study
democracy (including myself) would insist that you can't create
democracy in a country that's not culturally ready for it--and that
readiness comes from a long process of cultural, social, and economic
development that China has only recently begun. However, we can
always nudge the country along in the right direction.
>
>Now i'm not saying that we should take such drastic measures now, as there
>is obviously no need to, but if the dragon does not realise that she could
>be treated this way if she took such actions as to, for example, make an
>agressive military move on Taiwan, then what is essentially stopping her
>from doing it?
Well, for one thing, at the moment Taiwan would kick China's ass in
any invasion, even without out help. :) It would probably do a lot of
damage to Taiwan, though: it's more a terroristic threat than a
threat to extend control forcibly over the island.
>It is that she is biding her time, until the playing field is advantageous
>to her or at least even!!!!
>
I think China's leaders think this. I also think they're highly
unrealistic about a number of things, including their ability to
incoroporate a democratic state in their authoritarian system
(especially without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs), the
extent to which the world is going to defer to them by allowing them a
"sphere of influence", and their ability to develop a world-class
economy without becoming democratic.
Scott Orr
JCarew
"Pave_Hawk" <tobyfr...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message:
>Hey guys, I'd like to have your thoughts on my little pet
>theory. It goes along the lines of:
>Personally I think the Western world, including such nations
>as the UK, Germany and the US has more to fear in the
>coming future, politically and militarily, not from the resurgent
>and violent actions of Osama and Co., and other such
>organizations world-wide, but more from the waking Dragon that
>is The People's Republic of China.
>Whilst she is not in her prime, economically and militarily,
>at the present time, in what state would she be, say,
>10-20 years from now??
About like she is now a loud mouth Paper Tiger
>She has a burgeoning economy,
Which is starting to have problems take
a look at her latest unemployment rate.
Which is making her leaders very
nervous I have been given to understand
lots of unemployed roaming the countryside
looking for jobs
> has relaxed the old
>Communist system so as to adapt to the modern
>Capitalist economic system and reap it's many
>benefits, has the world's largest standing army,
>plus the ability and will to pump it full of cash without
>taking the heat from the 'voting' population.
Its a two way street China needs our "cash"
more than we need her exports. We can always
switch our main importer to another country
say India which could leave China high and dry
when it comes to "cash"
>We must also accept that no government, at the present
>time has the balls to, or will, pardon the French, tell them
>in no uncertain terms to either keep their hands of Taiwan
>or else,
Oh I wouldn't say that. From what I,v seen over the
years there all mouth when it comes to Taiwan, but
that's what Paper Tigers are all about. They huff and
puff and that's about it. We just keep our mouth shut
and snicker behind there back, its called diplomacy
and its worked for the past 50 years it makes it
easier to do business with them down the line
>or relax the existing internal laws
>relating to human rights, or none there-of.
The "human rights" thing is a side show the
important thing that guides our relationship with
present day China is the business of business
spelled money.
>Now I'm not saying that we should take such drastic
>measures now, as there is obviously no need to, but
>if the dragon does not realize that she could be treated
>this way if she took such actions as to, for example, make an
>aggressive military move on Taiwan, then what is
>essentially stopping her from doing it?
Her export trade with the United States and the large
number of Taiwan importers here in the US. Ever
here of the Chinese triangle? Imports from China
financed by the Taiwanese Chinese in Taiwan,
handled by Taiwanese Chinese importers here
in Southern California. And our control over the
Panama canal half her exports to the United
States and Europe go through the Panama
canal.
>It is that she is biding her time, until the playing
>field is advantageous to her or at least even!!!!
Not to worry who's being watched by a lot of
people and before she goes to far things will
change. Her Achilles heal is her need for an
export market for her goods to provide jobs
for her working age population to them
pacified
Jim
Kenshiro -Ken- Kagemusagi
<tobyfr...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
[...]
> It is that she is biding her time, until the playing field is advantageous
> to her or at least even!!!!
You Aussies really have this seige mentality of "We are the only
underpopulated Indo-European enthic enclave in the myst of alien culture".
:)
Well... after the Japanese Empire landed so close in WW2, guess your
phobia is not too exaggerated.
My 2-Yen's worth.... it is not China you got to worry about, she wants to
be materialistically decadent like the West... money power fame and all.
It is true that all this talk that China will modernized and become
democratic due to western trade is pure hogwash. The Romans, Charlemagne,
English... were all empires with no democracies during the height of their
economic prowess.
You better watch out for India ! By 2050... she will have 1.6 billion
people... far surpassing China of 1.3 billion. She has Nukes... she
dislike US being close palzwowz with Pakistan... and she will use Nukes
against the Paks... the Chinese... and the US if they cross her
nationalistic zeal.
China - Russia - US will actually engage in a tripartite alliance against
Islamic fanatics.... since the Europeans are all too busy squabbling at
the EU over power and representation between "big vs little" countries.
Although... this will also means a gradual decline of American military
and economic influence in the Pacific as China emerges as the new economic
and political power.
BTW... read the news today... Japan, for the first time in Postwar history
in the past 50 years, filled economic sanctions against the US ! Wow....
how the junior partner now demands to be treated like a senior partner in
the alliance. :)
K.
John Goold
"Scott D. Orr" <sd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
Scott D. Orr
(Kenshiro -Ken- Kagemusagi) wrote:
>BTW... read the news today... Japan, for the first time in Postwar history
>in the past 50 years, filled economic sanctions against the US ! Wow....
>how the junior partner now demands to be treated like a senior partner in
>the alliance. :)
Not exactly--Japan's sanctions were wimpy compared to the EU's--just
symbolic, really. Not that I disagree with the motivation, here.
Scott Orr
md
jjmr...@hn.ozemail.com.au says...
> Are we talking about China or America here?
Ouch.
lvaughn
Wow I finally agree with you about something.
When the Europeans first started to trade with China the Chinese did
not wish to buy European goods in exchange. They did wish to sell so
as to put the masses to work. Spices and silk were soon supplanted by
porcelain and fine china and all sorts of goods. When the Brits of
Dutch wanted to sell the Chinese would take a sample and then say we
don't need this, only gold and silver etc. Finally in desperation the
Brits decided to force the Chinese into buying Opium which they
supplied from Burma and Afghanistan. ie the Opium War.
The Japanese in 53 only sold parasols and chopsticks but by 56 were
selling us transistor radio's. At first we supplied the transistors
and the plastic and the japanese supplied the finished product at
cheap prices. Japan moved up the scale to quality products and a
rising yen, and did not want to import anything except technologies
and nohow. It became arrogant and sold US military secrecy to the
USSR ie Toshiba and the propellers used on Trident submarines.
Internal consumption was discouraged, and exports built them to a
powerhouse by the 1980s
Then we started moving our purchases to the little tigers, Korea,
Singapore, Malaysia, and started trading with China. China supplanted
Japans exports, and Japan has slid into a 10 year recession.
China has the same vulnerabilities as Japan, and probably more. When
and if China becomes too belligerent, her economy which is
increasingly based on exports, could be replaced by South Asia, and or
a depressed Japan.
The Chinese will always shoot off to the extremes every 25 years or so
but they usually slide back to reality after venting.
If and when China vents her self destructive extremes too far, and
becomes and unreliable trading partner, the US will simply look to
other sources for cheap products.
When and if that happens, China will probably move from her current
centralized bureaucracy faze to the de-centralized War Lord faze, that
China has alternated between for the last 3,000 years. One of
centralized empire to regionalism, and back again.
Finally a billion plus people, is not always an asset. Trying to feed
house and move a vast army can be very de-stabilizing to China.
During the Korean war China had several years to prepare and to move a
million volunteers down a funnel to the chokepoint on the Korean
peninsula. She was not hampered by being bombed and had pretty much
sanctuary, but despite this the logistics to move these million
volunteers almost disrupted the whole of China.
China is powerful if it stays docile, but any disruption internally,
could very well destabilize a precarious balance.
Finally as to China supplanting the US as chief military power I think
is very remote. If the US had no Army or Air force, and relied solely
on its Navy and specifically it Submarine force, it would still be the
worlds chief superpower.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Akorps666
is mutually profitable trade. We can't make
the rest of the world love us, but if both
sides are profiting from the relationship,
it gets better and better (we both become
richer) and there is less likelihood of
military conflict. The Taiwan issue we
just have to agree to disagree on, and
postpone dealing with it until a later date.
I think the well meaning liberal fallacy, that
we can make the rest of the world love us,
is at the root of most of our problems. The
rest of the nations of the world each think
of themselves as the good guys, and any
strangers are regarded with suspicion. So
if we just barge into their affairs and try to
do good deeds, what really will happen is
that no matter how much foreign aid
money we give them, they will still see us
as outsiders, and project all their negativity
and fear and unconscious repressed
hatred onto us, and still see us as the bad
guys. Anyway, it is the worst elements
that always end up with our foreign aid
money in their pockets, the corrupt
politicians and criminals, so foreign aid
actually ruins the countries we give it to,
by entrenching the power of a kleptocracy
that is then able to oppress and rob their
own populations in even greater measure
than before. I've been reading George
Kennan's memoirs (1925-1950), and he
has a good theory, namely that we
should only get involved in relations with
foreign nations when there is at least as
much interest on their side as on ours.
That avoids these do-gooder scenarios
where we barge in trying to make everyone
love us, and end up making everyone hate
us, at great expense to the American
taxpayers. So mutually profitable trade is
the main type of relationship we should
focus on, along with mutually
advantageous military alliances. Of course
sometimes we have to go to war, as
against Al Qaeda terrorists: in that case,
we should focus on exterminating them
completely, both as a lesson to other
potential enemies, and because that is
the only kind of war we really understand
and are good at. Limited objectives may
be better in an ideal world, but we always
botch it when we seek limited objectives,
so we should just go for unconditional
surrender, and leave the limited wars to
more subtle minds than our own. Total
destruction of the enemy is the only way
for the USA to fight. Anything short of
that will rebound against us, as happened
when we let Saddam Hussein off the hook,
by not finishing the job during the Gulf War.
I guess they call that "blowback" these
days, another current buzzword that I
hate with a passion.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
lva...@nospam.citlink.net (lvaughn) wrote:
> Brits decided to force the Chinese into buying Opium
The Chinese people did not have to be forced to buy opium. They were
quite enthusiastic about it. This was why the Chinese Government tried
to clamp down on opium imports. By the way the growth and sale of
opium was legal throughout the British Empire including the UK until
the twentieth century. It was even put into Geoffrey's Cordial which
was a medicine for children.
There was no illegal drug problem in the UK because drugs were not
illegal. Of course the only ones available were opium and cocaine.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Scott D. Orr
I know you think you're being clever (although top-quoting makes you
seem less so), but if you think the U.S. is insular and arrogant,
China is an order of magnitude worse.
Scott Orr
John Goold
"Scott D. Orr" <sd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:hibgeu8udign4p350...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 May 2002 10:08:31 +1000, "John Goold"
> <jjmr...@hn.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott D. Orr" <sd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >
Pave_Hawk
The only responses i've seen so far are with regards to some other posts
that i haven't seen.
Does anyone want to repsond to it?
David Thornley
>along the lines of:
>
>Personally i think the Western world, including such nations as the UK,
>Germany and the US has more to fear in the coming future, politically and
>militarily, not from the resurgent and violent actions of Osama and Co., and
>other such organisations world-wide, but more from the waking Dragon that is
>The People's Republic of China.
>
I don't think China is not going to be very dangerous to the Western
world.
>Whilst she is not in her prime, economically and militarily, at the present
>time, in what state would she be, say, 10-20 years from now??
>
Very likely better. On the other hand, China isn't much of a danger
now, so an increased danger isn't necessarily great.
>She has a burgening economy, has relaxed the old Communist system so as to
>adapt to the modern Capatalist economic system and reap it's many benefits,
>has the world's largets standing army, plus the ability and will to pump it
>full of cash without taking the heat from the 'voting' population.
>
We'll see how the economic development goes. My prediction is that either
China will not catch up to Western standards or that the Chinese
government will have to twist to be different in some respects I can't
really predict.
Having a very large standing army, and pumping money into it, is *not*
a recipe for fast economic development. It is a recipe for intimidating
neighbors now.
>We must also accept that no government, at the present time has the balls
>to, or will, pardon the French, tell them in no uncertain terms to either
>keep their hands of Taiwan or else, or relax the existing internal laws
>relating to human rights, or none there-of.
>
I think they've been told to keep off Taiwan, and pressuring a country
to relax existing internal laws is a very tricky business. It's really
hard to enforce human rights in a country without conquering it, and
I don't suggest trying to conquer China.
On the other hand, I think easing up on human rights would likely
increase China's economic development.
>Now i'm not saying that we should take such drastic measures now, as there
>is obviously no need to, but if the dragon does not realise that she could
>be treated this way if she took such actions as to, for example, make an
>agressive military move on Taiwan, then what is essentially stopping her
>from doing it?
>
The water? China does not have a respectable navy now, and I'd imagine
that building one is going to take longer than twenty years. I don't
know how the Chinese air force is going to be, but mass-producing
high tech is really difficult, and is going to be out of reach of the
Chinese economy for some time.
>It is that she is biding her time, until the playing field is advantageous
>to her or at least even!!!!
>
Well, that seems reasonable.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Scott D. Orr
I count five direct responses to your original post, including one
from me. Maybe you need a better news server?
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
<jjmr...@hn.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>touchy touchy strikey nervy
>
No, just answering the question. I realize Australians and Canadians
like to think they can tweak Americans, but frankly we're barely aware
you exist, let alone worried what you say about us. :)
Scott Orr
TMOliver
> In article <2g7eeuofetfkd1fao...@4ax.com>,
> lva...@nospam.citlink.net (lvaughn) wrote:
>
>> Brits decided to force the Chinese into buying Opium
>
> The Chinese people did not have to be forced to buy opium.
> They were
> quite enthusiastic about it. This was why the Chinese
> Government tried to clamp down on opium imports.
The mass cultivation of opium in India was a "project" supported
by the British government and "The City". The Chinese were
unwilling (un-needful) to purchase any of the myriad products of
British industry, the receipt of hard goods or specie for
the sale of which came the British economy afloat. With nothing
to sell the Chinese were willing to buy, opium became the
available alternative to manufactured goods, textiles, etc..
Silver flowed into merchant coffers....
> By the way
> the growth and sale of opium was legal throughout the
> British Empire including the UK until the twentieth century.
> It was even put into Geoffrey's Cordial which was a medicine
> for children.
>
> There was no illegal drug problem in the UK because drugs
> were not
> illegal. Of course the only ones available were opium and
> cocaine.
....as was true in the US, when between 1870 and some time after
1900, the number of addicts has been variously estimated, always
high and predominately women. Laudanum may not have killed as
many folks as popskull, but it sure was a popular
curative/relaxative/anti-stress medication.
TMO
John Goold
Fortunately most citizens of the US are better mannered than Mr Orr.
"Scott D. Orr" <sd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ditieu45e1aqe8d5c...@4ax.com...
Kenshiro -Ken- Kagemusagi
For the record... I always hear some Gung-Ho Indo-European American going
off about how China is stealing American military secrets. Well... I hear
this old Asian saying "If you dare to sell, then I dare to buy".
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/24/spy.timeline/
Of the past 20 or so major spy cases in the US since the 1980s..... get this...
2 were accused of spying for China ( including the infamous Wen Ho Lee debacle )
1 accused for South Korea ( due to ethnic loyalty )
1 accused for Israel ( due to ethnic loyalty )
and the remaining 15 or so regular White-Americans all did it for "money".
Now with a track record like that.... I think barking up China's tree is
the least of our worries when you have regular Americans willing to sell
out their country for a buck.
K.
Becker
ballistic missles. Without either air or sea power, any aggressive
posture beyond their own borders is suicidal. The five million man
army is a sitting duck which could be pulverized Iraq- and Serbian-
style in any future conflict. The PRC needs to invest heavily in
creating a blue water fleet with aircraft carriers, long range
bombers, and attack submarines before it can even imagine halting an
American response to a Taiwan invasion. Their entire eastern seaboard
is wide open to American and allied attack, since their air defenses
are antiquated. I suppose they could lob nuclear weapons at American
conventional forces, but that would also be suicidal. China is many
decades away from being a world-class military power.
Economically, they could easily become a miracle story like Japan and
Korea. But having already weathered that type of furious competion,
the USA would be ready to counter it, or absorb it with free-market
globalization.
In short, I disagree. China is growing stronger, but until the USA
declines, we can't see China as displacing it for the forseable
future.
"Pave_Hawk" <tobyfr...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:<3ce54...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
Scott D. Orr
<jjmr...@hn.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>In that case why bother responding?
>
Because there was a real point to be made: while the U.S. is widely
(and with considerable justification) viewed as insular and arrogant,
it is much less well known that China's view of the outside world is
considerably more insular and arrogant.
>Fortunately most citizens of the US are better mannered than Mr Orr.
I believe the original jerkiness was on your part. Don't dish it out
if you can't take it, Ozzie.
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
wrote:
> pustulated:
>
>> In article <2g7eeuofetfkd1fao...@4ax.com>,
>> lva...@nospam.citlink.net (lvaughn) wrote:
>>
>>> Brits decided to force the Chinese into buying Opium
>>
>> The Chinese people did not have to be forced to buy opium.
>> They were
>> quite enthusiastic about it. This was why the Chinese
>> Government tried to clamp down on opium imports.
>
>The mass cultivation of opium in India was a "project" supported
>by the British government and "The City". The Chinese were
>unwilling (un-needful) to purchase any of the myriad products of
>British industry, the receipt of hard goods or specie for
>the sale of which came the British economy afloat. With nothing
>to sell the Chinese were willing to buy, opium became the
>available alternative to manufactured goods, textiles, etc..
>
>Silver flowed into merchant coffers....
Well, no, technically an economy works by trading stuff for other
stuff--money is just a medium of exchange, to avoid the necessity for
direct barter. The problem here is that the Chinese govenrment wanted
to export stuff but not import stuff, which doesn't work in the long
run: one side ends up with all the gold and silver (and is "rich"),
and the other side ends up with all the stuff (and is happy), which
isn't sutainable. Or else the Chinese government didn't want to trade
at all (because it believed that places and stuff outside China were
beneath its notice).
The scenario I really do _not_ believe is that Chinese people didn't
want to trade the stuff they could make easily for the stuff the
British had to trade: they would in fact be exceptional in all the
world, because peasants everywhere have always been willing to trade
for cheap manufactured clothing, cookware, farm tools, and the like
(all of these things can be manufactured more cheaply than a peasant
can make them by hand). What I suspect, therefore, is that the
Chinese _government_, speaking in the name of the Chinese people (but.
like any authoritarian govenrment, not really with their interests at
heart), _said_ that Chinese people didn't want British stuff, but you
can't really take what an authoritarian government says its people
want as a real indication of what they want.
Scott Orr
John Goold
"Scott D. Orr" <sd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:numleuc0iobaf2aun...@4ax.com...
Pave_Hawk
ISP......had all kinds of trouble recently.
At present, yes, militarily, China represents no kind of legitimate threat
to the political and military interests of such Western countries as the US,
but one must look toward the future.
Already, China has stubbornly thwarted, politically, several attempts by
Western nations, and nations within Asia, to either force more liberal
reforms on, for example Human Rights or restrictions on China's, essential,
hostile economic moves into South East Asia.
For example, most people don't know that the Panama Canal is actually run
and funded by a Chinese firm, and has been for quite some time. Would
someone please tell me how many miles the Panama Canal is from the Southern
Border? Now obviously this firm is not going to do anything that would harm
it's business and cause a poltical night-mare to the Chinese government like
prevent American military ships gaining access to the Canal, but no one can
say how they would react, say, 10 to 20 years from now when the playing
fields are evened up.
"Becker" <bec...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1e8ec556.02052...@posting.google.com...
JCarew
> Thanks for all your replies......yes, there's something wrong with my
> ISP......had all kinds of trouble recently.
>
> At present, yes, militarily, China represents no kind of legitimate threat
> to the political and military interests of such Western countries as the
US,
> but one must look toward the future.
>
> Already, China has stubbornly thwarted, politically, several attempts by
> Western nations, and nations within Asia, to either force more liberal
> reforms on, for example Human Rights or restrictions on China's,
essential,
> hostile economic moves into South East Asia.
>
> For example, most people don't know that the Panama Canal is actually run
> and funded by a Chinese firm, and has been for quite some time.
Its been in the news here in US a number of times. The Chinese
do not have military control of the Canal according the news
here in the US
>Would someone please tell me how many miles the
>Panama Canal is from the Southern Border?
As I recall about 2000 miles from the border of the Southern US
>Now obviously this firm is not going to do anything that would harm
> it's business and cause a political night-mare to the Chinese government
like
> prevent American military ships gaining access to the Canal, but no one
can
> say how they would react, say, 10 to 20 years from now when the playing
> fields are evened up.
The US still has the responsibility for the defense of the
Panama Canal from a foreign power
Jim
TMOliver
>
> Well, no, technically an economy works by trading stuff for
> other stuff--money is just a medium of exchange, to avoid
> the necessity for direct barter. The problem here is that
> the Chinese govenrment wanted to export stuff but not import
> stuff, which doesn't work in the long run: one side ends up
> with all the gold and silver (and is "rich"), and the other
> side ends up with all the stuff (and is happy), which isn't
> sutainable. Or else the Chinese government didn't want to
> trade at all (because it believed that places and stuff
> outside China were beneath its notice).
>
> The scenario I really do _not_ believe is that Chinese
> people didn't want to trade the stuff they could make easily
> for the stuff the British had to trade:
At that point in time (and at most points in time) one can
hardly separate the people from the government (loosely
configured as it may have been out side of Peking). The folks
who controlled every aspect of trade were government officials,
and it was only their individual and collective corruption which
allowed the opium trade to exist (while at the same time they
displayed little desire to accept the same "corruption" in the
form of bribes to allow textiles or manufactured goods in any
quantities). Of course, these same "government officials"
(their extended families and class allies, along with village
moneylenders, only allowed to operate at thge sufferance of the
mandarins)controlled the every day life of almost every Chinese,
and had not quite come around to abandoning their
responsibilities as "patrons" (not patrons), instead of simply
squeezing the peasants, actually putting them off the land, the
likely result of buying better plows and that sort of things.
After all, not every invention increased the need for labor, and
for every cotton gin "ginning up" the ability to process cotton,
the demand for it and the slaves to chop (weed - worse than
picking to those of us who have ever blistered hands trying it)
and pick it, there were wool carding machines or spinners,
meaning that sheep could become more productive for landlords
than had been tenant farmers, more sheep and less Scots.
The Chinese Market was a new and unique experience for the
British, enormous in landmass and population, but dictated by
the customs and edicts of a "Central Government" which could
only be approached (or corrupted) indirectly. Even absent the
government restrictions, another factor, demographics, has to be
taken into account. A statistician might make the point that
their were only two sorts of customers in China, the rich who
didn't want or need British goods other than as curiosities (and
let's face it, the Chinese made better curiosities than
Birmingham or Manchester could) and the poor who couldn't afford
them (and for whom cheap opium provided some relief from lives
little better than Western slavery).
Interestingly, Japan, nearby but apparently not as attractive to
British mecantile interests - or a harder nut to crack,
displayed a harsher resistance to trade, but a far more rapid
willingness to adopt and adapt Western technology and
methodology in the long run.
To me at least, the greatest shock in modern Chinese history has
been the apparent willingness (or the inability to control) of
the PRC to so rapidly allow/permit/even encourage the Chinese
people to taste so much forbidden fruit.
> they would in fact
> be exceptional in all the world, because peasants everywhere
> have always been willing to trade for cheap manufactured
> clothing, cookware, farm tools, and the like (all of these
> things can be manufactured more cheaply than a peasant can
> make them by hand). What I suspect, therefore, is that the
> Chinese _government_, speaking in the name of the Chinese
> people (but. like any authoritarian govenrment, not really
> with their interests at heart), _said_ that Chinese people
> didn't want British stuff, but you can't really take what an
> authoritarian government says its people want as a real
> indication of what they want.
>
In essence, I don't think we're in disagreement, but that when I
referred to China and the Chinese, I was old fashioned, failing
to separate government from people (but based on the premise
that throughout the 19th century, only in isolated situations
might the Chinese people express or undertake opinions or
actions divergent or separate from the policies of the
government). Trade, whether in goods or opium, was under the
control of the mandarins who were the local personification of
government as well as merchants (or the
cohorts/partners/corriptees of merchants).
As an aside (and in keeping with your quite appropriate view of
specie as a hard-to-market/only modestly appreciable non-
commodity), for all the Western interst in Chinese "goods",
those markets must have been limited, for the British merchants,
already with access to cheaper tea, were willing to accept
specie, about the only medium of which they were unable to cause
to "appreciate" through exchange (although I presume it was
popular to use it to exchange for other goods able to be marked
up for resale in foreign markets).
lvaughn
<jjmr...@hn.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>No prizes for second Mr Orr. I didn't start the spamming.
>
You started with the first insult not Orr, The rest of the USers just
ignored your ignoramus statement.
John Goold
"lvaughn" <lva...@nospam.citlink.net> wrote in message
news:t5tneu46q8bkp0ka8...@4ax.com...
Scott D. Orr
wrote:
It's not quite as "tight" a system as you make it out, but yes, the
outlines are correct--what I was objecting to was your apparent
suggestion that the Chinese didn't need anything the British wanted to
sell.
>After all, not every invention increased the need for labor, and
>for every cotton gin "ginning up" the ability to process cotton,
>the demand for it and the slaves to chop (weed - worse than
>picking to those of us who have ever blistered hands trying it)
>and pick it, there were wool carding machines or spinners,
>meaning that sheep could become more productive for landlords
>than had been tenant farmers, more sheep and less Scots.
When you decrease the demand for labor in one activity, you allow that
labor to be used for something else--especially if we're talking about
unskilled or semi-skilled labor. This is why peasants are willing to
buy manufactured clothes and cookware, because it frees up their time
for farming.
>The Chinese Market was a new and unique experience for the
>British, enormous in landmass and population, but dictated by
>the customs and edicts of a "Central Government" which could
>only be approached (or corrupted) indirectly. Even absent the
>government restrictions, another factor, demographics, has to be
>taken into account. A statistician might make the point that
>their were only two sorts of customers in China, the rich who
>didn't want or need British goods other than as curiosities (and
>let's face it, the Chinese made better curiosities than
>Birmingham or Manchester could) and the poor who couldn't afford
>them (and for whom cheap opium provided some relief from lives
>little better than Western slavery).
I think you're wrong to suggest that peasants can't afford any sort of
manufactured goods.
>Interestingly, Japan, nearby but apparently not as attractive to
>British mecantile interests - or a harder nut to crack,
>displayed a harsher resistance to trade, but a far more rapid
>willingness to adopt and adapt Western technology and
>methodology in the long run.
Yes, that's true.
>To me at least, the greatest shock in modern Chinese history has
>been the apparent willingness (or the inability to control) of
>the PRC to so rapidly allow/permit/even encourage the Chinese
>people to taste so much forbidden fruit.
I don't think the government has a choice--by historical Chiense
standards, it has amazing control over its territory, but by the
standards of other countries, that control is still quite weak.
Well I assume so. :) But although specie works at the micro level, at
the level of country to country you eventually have to exchange goods.
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
(Kenshiro -Ken- Kagemusagi) wrote:
>
>For the record... I always hear some Gung-Ho Indo-European American going
>off about how China is stealing American military secrets. Well... I hear
>this old Asian saying "If you dare to sell, then I dare to buy".
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/24/spy.timeline/
>
>Of the past 20 or so major spy cases in the US since the 1980s..... get this...
>
>2 were accused of spying for China ( including the infamous Wen Ho Lee debacle )
>
>1 accused for South Korea ( due to ethnic loyalty )
>
>1 accused for Israel ( due to ethnic loyalty )
>
>and the remaining 15 or so regular White-Americans all did it for "money".
>
I think that's pretty typical of spies in most countries.
Scott Orr
David Thornley
Pave_Hawk <tobyfr...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>At present, yes, militarily, China represents no kind of legitimate threat
>to the political and military interests of such Western countries as the US,
>but one must look toward the future.
>
may be a failure of my imagination or thinking about future war, but
the latest wars seem to imply that numbers of soldiers are becoming
relatively less important than the quality of the equipment and
training, in other words the stuff we're good at.
Moreover, the Chinese seem to be taking over economic roles the West
doesn't care as much about any more.
>Already, China has stubbornly thwarted, politically, several attempts by
>Western nations, and nations within Asia, to either force more liberal
>reforms on, for example Human Rights or restrictions on China's, essential,
>hostile economic moves into South East Asia.
>
China is not the only country to thwart external attempts at internal
reform. What are the South East Asia moves, and why should we care?