Well, gosh. I guess then that increased oil use will mean increased oil prices which will lead to more conservation, more efficient use and more exploration as well as alternative forms of energy er just like it has for the past few millenia.
The US has a trade imbalance with China that results mostly from its own companies making products there and shipping them to the home market. Remember that 70 percent of Chinese exports are made by multinationals in China. Do the math. Figure it out. Paulson would be a fool to pressure the Chinese to raise the yuan too much. Regardless, it ain’t going to happen and like the big deficits with Japan and the Four Tigers before it, this represents a breakdown of competitive advantages that are beneficial because they represent advantages for almost everyone.
Well, gosh. I guess then that increased oil use will mean increased oil prices which will lead to more conservation, more efficient use and more exploration as well as alternative forms of energy er just like it has for the past few millenia.
The US has a trade imbalance with China that results mostly from its own companies making products there and shipping them to the home market. Remember that 70 percent of Chinese exports are made by multinationals in China. Do the math. Figure it out. Paulson would be a fool to pressure the Chinese to raise the yuan too much. Regardless, it ain’t going to happen and like the big deficits with Japan and the Four Tigers before it, this represents a breakdown of competitive advantages that are beneficial because they represent advantages for almost everyone.[/quote]
Sigh…Actually it’s more to do with US savings rate than anything else…
You didn’t leave too many out there Fred, except perhaps Laos but they’ll follow China’s lead. You forgot Australia; they’re already following. Can’t get enough of the one party state. Add Afganistan and that place Borat comes from and perhaps another couple of Central Asian countries and you have almost scooped the pool.
China and America are already strategic enemies. China doesn’t have friends. It only has strategic rivals. That is a mind set. America does have friends, even today, but it doesn’t have credibility. It can’t win wars. It gets beaten by unsophisticated peasants. That don’t bode too well. It shouldn’t pick fights it can’t win. That really exposes its soft underbelly of political will. It should exploit its relationship with its friends. That is the only hope the US has of winning anything, political and economic isolation backed by the threat of bombs. The actual use of bombs only galvenizes people’s will to strike back no matter the cost. The fear of them is much more potent than the reality.
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan
Philippines
Brunei
Malaysia
Thailand
Cambodia
Indonesia
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Australia
India
Sri Lanka
Maldives
Central Asia is having a field day playing the US against China against Russia against the US. Let them do it if it suits their best interests.
No, we are in many way competitors but not strategic enemies. In fact, while we are competitors, I would argue that in reality we are also strategic friends.
With all other nations except the US, I would agree. I think that the Chinese understand that too and despite the Congressional bashing of China to suit popular opinion, so does our leadership.
Nonsense.
The US lost Vietnam not militarily but politically. Thirty years later, Vietnam is doing everything it can to become the capitalist US ally that the US wanted all along. Who lost what exactly? Afghanistan and Iraq are going to be long-term difficulties. We hold both strategically if not effectively. I believe that calculus will change in our favor the longer we stay.
What bodes ill is taking the European option of never fighting at all.
Nonsense. IF that were true, Europe would have convinced Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, China to leave Taiwan alone, and Russia to stop blackmailing the former USSR states and its Eastern European satrapies with oil supplies.