Why is everyone so scared of China?


#101

Whatever the reason, the excuse exists because their civilian population was raped and killed by the millions (by their own side and Japanese), if the excuse exists it is always easy to blame it on the former aggressor, it is human nature and it props up regimes worldwide…whether it is Iran or China or many a country in South/Latin America.


#102

I think some of the Chinese leaders can see the problem with maintaining legitimacy through a combination of Xenophobia, memories of wrong doing , media control and continual economic growth the likes they have seen over the past couple of decades. Wen Jiabao talks of democracy and freedom in CNN interview

Not expecting anything to change quickly, China seems very cautious regarding making any changes, but the fact this is now up for discussion is interesting.


#103

The point was that if the US had propped up the development of China earlier, as it did with Japan, China would have at least Taiwan levels of education and income and so anti-Japanese hysteria would be muted.


#104

I think the point was the abomb on China would have helped it somehow, which is pretty warped thinking if you think about it!

How would the US have propped up development of China? They supported the KMT govt, controlled by warlords and corrupt government officials, well known as one of the most disastrous governments ever to run China. The Communists didn’t do much better mind you. We can only speculate on what would have happened.


#105

[quote=“headhonchoII”]I think the point was the abomb on China would have helped it somehow, which is pretty warped thinking if you think about it!

How would the US have propped up development of China? They supported the KMT govt, controlled by warlords and corrupt government officials, well known as one of the most disastrous governments ever to run China. The Communists didn’t do much better mind you. We can only speculate on what would have happened.[/quote]

well, maybe the threat of the a-bomb alone might have changed the outcome of China in the 50s. I didn’t say go ahead and drop it on most populated city and see if the Chinese give up. But what if the US had reformed China the way it did with Japan? would there have been a good possibility to have a nice democratic developed country? Perhaps. (maybe longer to construct since Japan is smaller country). But maybe it would have avoided the civil war, the cultural revolution etc. Mind you, I did say we were doing hypotheticals, so yes, this is all speculation. But also note, my family was affected by both the Japanese, the 49 revolution, the cultural revolution (sent down), etc. So it would maybe have been a boon to all future generations if both the KMT and CCP were reformed into something else around '45. Maybe there wouldn’t be missiles aimed at Taipei right now. etc. but yes, all speculation. but speculating wasn’t my point.


#106

Interesting discussion.
Guy In Taiwan, I agree with your take on World War Two being far from a victory for the West in that it left vast areas under the Soviet jackboot. The suffering in the Eastern European areas is often underplayed - in some places, the people were unfortunate enough to be f@#ked over three times: first by the Commies, then the Nazis, and then the Commies again. The majority of the human fuel for the gas chambers came from these areas too.

Jack Burton, yes, it’s interesting to ponder what could have been done during that window of opportunity the Americans had with the Atomic bomb. There are several things that negated its use: people’s tiredness of war, unwillingness to use nukes on such recent allies, and there may have been a racial element. On top of that, the window was shorter than the yanks had expected - because of spies, the Soviets were able to fast track their own nuclear weapons program and they had their own weapon by 1949/50.

If the clock could be turned back, I’m sure the Yanks wouldn’t have supplied the Russians with so much military equipment during WW2. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.

I think that an interesting “what if” that is seldom considered is this: Let’s imagine that the Japanese and Chinese agreed to end the Sino-Jap war before WW@ kicked off. The Japanese realising that they couldn’t take all of China, and the KMT wanting to finish off the communists, they could have made peace, the Japanese keeping some of the north but withdrawing from southern areas.
The KMT would have most likely wiped out the communists, and without a costly war against the Japanese (which was funded by printing enormous amounts of money and thus bringing on hyperinflation), the economy would not have gone down the toilet.

Wher’e my bottle?


#107

[quote=“lbksig”][quote=“bismarck”]
The four large tubes visible just aft of the pennant number (420) are the Sunburn missiles, of which these ships carry eight. The missile is a sea-skimming missile with velocity of Mach 2.5, armed with a 300 kg high-explosive or a nuclear 200 kt warhead. The range is from 10 to 120 km. Their velocity, range and warhead is what makes these missiles so fearsome. That said, an aircraft carrier battle group (CVBG) would actually need to be within 120 km of one of these vessels for them to actually deploy their Sunburns. And there lies their problem.
A US CVBG is a total fighting system comprised of the carrier and several surface and sub-surface escorts, not to mention an arsenal of aircraft which would be the envy of most airforces the world over. A surface vessels two biggest threats aren’t necessarily other surface vessels, especially buggers like the Sovremenny class, but firstly aircraft and secondly submarines. As submariners like to say, their are two types of vessels. Submarines, and targets. A US CVBG has a range much greater than 120km and in a real war the Sovremennys would be neutralised long before their missiles would even begin to be a threat.[/quote]

What about that new anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that China is deploying? The purported range is 1,000 miles with a Mach 10 speed. There isn’t much in the US arsenal that could defend against something with that range. Each carrier group has a limited number of anti-ballistic missiles. Fire enough ASBM’s and you’ll eventually exhaust the defenses. The next ASBM that gets through would take something out. A missile is far cheaper than any of the ships it is aimed at. You take out a carrier group, or really just the carrier, and the force projection model is done for. Taking out US air bases at Kadena, Osan or Kunsan would be even easier than finding and hitting a carrier group at sea.

The US Navy War College Review has an paper on China’s “anti access” ballistic missiles by Marshall Hoyler that’s worth reading. The basic premise is that active defense, the current plan, won’t work and alternatives need to be pursued before China gets to a point where they can deny the access to the Pacific.

edit

I forgot to include two articles. The first is a Foreign Policy blog post from Thomas Ricks. His prescription follows what George Friedman wrote in the Next Hundred Years with regards to investing in unmanned drones and stealth. The second is a Foreign Affairs article titled “Keeping the Pacific Pacific” and deals with the diplomatic and strategic effects of China being the key player in the Pacific.[/quote]

Bit more swivel-chair strategy.

They could have cheap carriers using converted VLCC tankers or container ships and VTO aircraft. They could play a “shell game” with VL fleets of surplus VLCC acting as decoys (I’ve heard it suggested that the civilian Atlantic Conveyor bulk carrier was being deliberately being used as a decoy for the British carriers when it was hit by an Argentine cruise missile). Perhaps they should start collecting old tankers instead of sending them to Bangladesh for dismantlement. They could patch them with concrete, like that Smoker mothership in Waterworld.

Long term, though, fleet carriers have probably had it. Its not really surprising, since the tactical trend has been dispersal in the face of accurate firepower since at least the introduction of the rifle, and a carrier is a pretty concentrated object. Small fast ships launching drones might remain viable.

The same requirement for dispersal means the next generation of combat aircraft have to be VTO (and/or drones), since an airfield is easy target. Taiwans airfields must be especially vulnerable, and they should probably have been supplied with the Harrier by the US, though AFAIK they didn’t ask for it. They would also have been a logical customer for the surplus British Sea Harriers, with thier enhanced (apparently very enhanced, in the tradition of preparing for the war you just finished fighting) air defence capabilities, if the UK weren’t so shit-scared of China.


#108

The point was that if the US had propped up the development of China earlier, as it did with Japan, China would have at least Taiwan levels of education and income and so anti-Japanese hysteria would be muted.[/quote]

In stark contrast to how they treated China (such as Nanking Massacre), Japanese colonists treated Taiwanese with utmost respect. Taiwanese enjoyed many years of peace under Japanese rule. Most elder Taiwanese still prefer the Jap era over KMT era in Taiwan.

I’m sure you already know that.


#109

Why doesn’t the U.S. just ban all imports from China? Some good pros and cons here:
helium.com/debates/93460-sho … from-china
The U.S. used to do just fine with safely manufacturing and distributing what the public wants. Now, we have a “Johny come lately” tooting their horn and trying to control the modern worlds most powerful economy. Do we really need them? I suggest no.
If any company poisoned our children, built tofu schools, allowed the current corrption (I know, it’s not all that good in the U.S.) and/or tried to control the U.S. government 20 years ago, they would have been soundly punished. (Thanks Richard Nixon for allowing this ridiculous arrangement - add Henry Kissinger) One point that was made in the Helium site was that it would be a disaster if China dumped their treasuries on the market in retaliation. mmmm. I suggest that this would be a benfit. They would have to “dump” at a discount and there are other economies out there that would gladly buy at the discount. If there is no discount, but a gradual sale, then, who cares? They will get bought as the worlds nations can, on the open market.
I think it is time to stand up to this vocal bully and yell, bullshit. China, you need the U.S. more than we need you.


#110

so retailers and companies that use Chinese manufacturing will just roll over and play dead? walmart, nike, apple, clothing companies, most consumer products, etc. will all be affected. How many common items in the average store these days aren’t made in China. just one item: forget about wearing shoes unless you buy expensive leather shoes or expect to fight for the small remaining number coming out of Vietnam or India.

How will that plan ever happen? laughable.


#111

It is not laughable. These companies went there with knowledge of the risks. All companies do risk management and price accordingly. Overall, we need to get our country back and no recent party seems to understand that the public wants action. We are worried about mistakes but . . . hell . . .do something. Tell China to take a hike and economically isolate them. Who are they going to sell their poisonous shit to? Uganda?


#112

it’s laughable, because your proposal is totally unrealistic. the US cannot overnight or in the short term decide to switch off Chinese imports for political, financial, and practical reasons.

These companies may have taken a risk, yes, but they are also very powerful large US companies that employ plenty of US workers and make up large portions of the local economy. It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that the federal government would be willing to or even could politically accept consequences for destroying these businesses by barring imports, much less the illegality of doing so.

Then, there’s the matter of public outrage: plenty of people rely on cheap goods no matter where it’s from. Yes, there is anger at some products. But barring all other products from China (not all of them are problematic)… is unrealistic. Have you looked at how many products are made in China? The shelves would be empty… the same people who want action would also be very unhappy at being able to buy anything.

The US does limit imports that are problematic e.g. counterfeit goods, goods that infringe on IP rights, contraband, etc. If there’s a problem with certain types of goods, especially in the food sector (bad milk powder, etc.), there are ways of dealing with that and limiting those products specifically.

Until then, your plan is laughable.


#113

so retailers and companies that use Chinese manufacturing will just roll over and play dead? walmart, nike, apple, clothing companies, most consumer products, etc. will all be affected. How many common items in the average store these days aren’t made in China. just one item: forget about wearing shoes unless you buy expensive leather shoes or expect to fight for the small remaining number coming out of Vietnam or India.

How will that plan ever happen? laughable.[/quote]

There would be an adjustment, but the factories would rapidly move into countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, India, Pakistan etc. Very rapidly, it’s what they always do, since many of them are Taiwanese owned anyway but sell on to the big multinationals. I don’t think a blanket ban would work but certainly America was very foolhardy to encourage the majority of it’s manufacturing base to move off-shore. The current situation really favours multinationals and Chinese companies and the Chinese government. It certainly does not favour quite large amounts of Americans and is causing a huge balance of payments problem which is rolling into your national debt and effectively bankrupting the country long-term.


#114

sounded he was suggesting a blanket ban, but either way it’s a trade war that will trigger tit for tat. my point was that US companies like Wal-mart are very tied into China but as a source of cheap goods and as a place for expansion into domestic consumption. That’s a lot of investment.

Attacking Chinese imports really is a strike at the CCP and its plans to bring jobs to its hundreds of millions. Any US company doing business in China will be a target. and lots of companies now see their AP (China) arm as their biggest expansion unit.

So I just don’t really see it happening just because some folks think the “public is outraged and wants it.” This is the same public that I presume wants cheap goods and would riot if they had to pay 300USD for a pair of shoes (or whatever). But I’m all ears as to how such a proposal might be implemented step-by-step.


#115

sounded he was suggesting a blanket ban, but either way it’s a trade off that will trigger tit for tat. my point was that US companies like Wal-mart are very tied into China but as a source of cheap goods and as a place for expansion into domestic consumption. That’s a lot of investment.

Attacking Chinese imports really is a strike at the CCP and its plans to bring jobs to its hundreds of millions. Any US company doing business in China will be a target. and lots of companies now see their AP (China) arm as their biggest expansion unit.

So I just don’t really see it happening just because some folks think the “public is outraged and wants it.” This is the same public that I presume wants cheap goods and would riot if they had to pay 300USD for a pair of shoes (or whatever). But I’m all ears as to how such a proposal might be implemented step-by-step.[/quote]

those are jobs americans refuse to do anyways. i dont see whats the problem.


#116

There have been a lot of jobs offshored that Americans WOULD do, it is just not economic to have in America at the moment, if you stick to a free trade system that is gerrymandered to one sides favour (with the connivance of corporations who use it to make record profits…check their profit statements over the last year or two…don’t you think it’s strange)? Are you saying Americans won’t work in manufacturing plants , of course they do and they will!

As for the old chestnut who would pay 300 usd for shoes, don’t belive that one. First of all Nike, Adidas etc offshored their production to Taiwan, China and Vietnam decades ago but have never reduced their prices, even if labour is 1/5th the cost of the US. They just pump their budgets into 100 million dollar marketing campaigns…the price of shoes and clothes for branded goods comes from their marketing spend and a careful assessment of how much they can get the consumer to pay. It’s not really linked to the material or manufacture cost.

Not only Nike do this but LV and most of the luxury bands manufacture their bags and accessories in China, to sell back to the Asians (this is one example where it may not hurt Westerners but it doesn’t benefit them as much as they should have…if the manufacturing component was kept in the original country that gave it it’s original ‘cache’, it also shows how dumb many consumers are, paying 1000s USD for a mass produced bag from some factory in China).
Second automation means the actual labour cost component of manufacturing is decreasing rapidly, so the low valuation of the yuan is the real attraction for many companies aswell as lax labour benefit and pollution laws.

Thirdly the way a lot of these CEOs operate is they have to bring in quick cost savings rather than thinking about the medium to long term, so the easiest way to do that is outsource and offshore, this can often be detrimental in the long run as you are creating your own competition plus you lose core skills of your business, the tight integation between the manufacturing and R&D department. I have seen a CEO do this, he earns about 5 times the next highest paid employee , on a shorterm contract, and his main contribution is to look to close down a top quality manufacturing line in Europe (which has produced very profitable and reliable product for over 30 years) and shift production to China, even though their production QC is unproven and it creates unneccessary risk in the business, let alone exposing carefully held production trade secrets…madness.

There is a place for offshoring and outsourcing but not to the extent that many companies have done. The current situation does no doubt help bring 100s millions out of poverty in China, it’s something good, but it has taken a bite out of the American economy too (it is also the fault of consumers themselves who load up on debt and don’t care where or how the goods they consume were manufactured). It’s also created a behemoth of an international economic competitor…watch out!


#117

sounded he was suggesting a blanket ban, but either way it’s a trade war that will trigger tit for tat. my point was that US companies like Wal-mart are very tied into China but as a source of cheap goods and as a place for expansion into domestic consumption. That’s a lot of investment.

Attacking Chinese imports really is a strike at the CCP and its plans to bring jobs to its hundreds of millions. Any US company doing business in China will be a target. and lots of companies now see their AP (China) arm as their biggest expansion unit.

So I just don’t really see it happening just because some folks think the “public is outraged and wants it.” This is the same public that I presume wants cheap goods and would riot if they had to pay 300USD for a pair of shoes (or whatever). But I’m all ears as to how such a proposal might be implemented step-by-step.[/quote]

Why the fear, do you want your economy to be bled to debt slowly? You have to take risks to change it, otherwise the other side will continue on their merry way! The interests of American multinationals and regular Americans are not always aligned, maybe the power is shifting back to the voters…we’ll see.


#118

I’m not trying to defend the status quo. I just don’t see it as being as easy as Enigma makes it out to be, so I would like to know how he thinks we can get there from here.

And I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement that people often ignore: that interests of US MNC and the American people are not necessarily aligned even though lots of people seem to presume that in their discussions.

Yes, the shoe analogy is not so great when you talk about brands like Nike, but there are plenty of consumer goods that are much cheaper than before. My thought was that if the US has certain problems with health, safety issues of Chinese products, those can be dealt with on another level. I just thought the idea of a blanket ban, let’s cut off trade, and they go do whatever the heck they want with US dollars as being foolish.


#119

US MNCs contribute to both dems and repubs. They don’t necessarily have american people’s best interest in mind, anyways.


#120

JB;
I don’t want to get into a pissing contest. You said my suggestion was laughable and this statement seems to me to be an attack on not only me but the suggestion. Why not just give your views without attacking? There is plenty of room to disagree without attacking. In any event, I guess I may have a whack coming because, as I recall, I whacked you in your 9-11 argument. Maybe I have it coming.
However, you suggest that the economic interests of MNC corporations should override the health, safety and incomes of the average American. I disagree, and soundly so. You may not have children in the U.S. and obviously don’t have a job there. I have a large family there and this shit with China is hurting not only my family but millions of others. I suspect if your children’s jobs were outsourced and they were forced to the food bank, or your children got sick from the shit that is imported, you might sing a different tune. MNC and their poloitical advocates have for too long tried, and for the most part succeeded, in taking control of the U.S. government. It’s presently a stalemate and we just continue at the status quo. We continue to allow economics in America to be contolled by special interests like the companies you mentioned. You have already backed off on Nike. (Ever checked the price of Nike sports shoes 20 years ago and now?) I recall scraping to pay more than $100.00 per son for X-traniners about 30 years ago. WTF? I have 3 sons and was a student working to get an education and still support my family of 8. Has moving to China reduced price? When I look, I have never seen a reduction in price to keep profit margins even. It was just an increase in profit. That was good for Nike stock holders but not for the manufacturing economy of America. The previous poster mentioned that Nike has plants in many countries and even when they didn’t, the price hasn’t changed. Damn straight.
“Apple” Why the hell did they go to China anyway? And, why the hell should I care about Apple over the health and safety of my family? It was because Apple wanted to screw the American labor force to their own ends. Profit? Do I worry about Apple’s economic interests? Not even for one instant. And, I am surprised that you would.
I am more concerned with my family and their economic well being than Apples’s bottom line. My government should feel the same.
The world, as we know it, will not come to an end if China can’t import to America. They can do whatever they want with their monetary policy becuase America won’t care in the least. American manufacturing will finally start to flourish and rebuild.
With that all being said, can anyone deny, including my naysayers, suggest that China is the problem and not the solution.
It can’t be a temporary ban. It must be a bill that is in long enough duration to encourage rebuilding corporate infrastructure with assurance of long-term gain. The dynamics will change.