The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > China, the fragile 21st century mercantilist state > Comments

China, the fragile 21st century mercantilist state : Comments

By Arthur Thomas, published 3/2/2010

China generates trade surpluses and foreign exchange reserves at the expense of trading partnersí exports, trade imbalances and employment opportunities.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
The author's conclusion depends on the idea that China's producing goods to satisfy human wants is bad because "unsustainable", because it increases emission of "GHGs" ie greenhouse gases, ultimately causing "global warming". Arthur, you've really got to get over this load of credulous and fraudulent poppycock. The globe is not warming, it's cooling. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it's plant food. There is no greenhouse effect that they can find after $70 billion worth of searching for it. Even if there were, it would result in increased plant growth - you know, like a greenhouse? The "evidence" that there is catastrophic global warming is based on computer programs, *all* of which failed to predict the current cooling phase even while carbon dioxide emissions increased. The science is affected by data manipulation, falsification, destruction, fraud and outright lying. Even if it were all true, it would by no means follow that we should respond by increasing taxes, rather than by decreasing government or simply adapting. It is not justifiable to starve millions to death to pander to the anti-human superstitions of modern spoilt Westerners.

Putting that aside, the faults of China that you describe are different in degree, but not in kind, from those of the other states - not "communities" - that are taking issue with China. "Currency manipulation"? The great grandaddy of them all is the US Federal Reserve. "Investment constraints" - tried to start a business or farm in Australia or the US lately? "Human rights abuse" - like the U.S.'s and allies' aggressive war, invasions, torture, disappearances? If downstream nations were to use water to make goods, at the expense of upstream Chinese users, why would that be any more just? Or perhaps we should just refrain from the use of water - bad for the environment I suppose?

Yes, the protectionist aspects of mercantilism are objectionable; but I think your argument would be better aimed against protectionism and violations of liberty in general, by all states everywhere, rather than at Chinese mercantilism per se.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 3 February 2010 2:55:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article giving a concise account of why China will fail and very likely cause a lot damage to other nations in the process.

My particular concern is that our Australian leadership is putting so much faith in China saving our bacon from the fires of a depression.

This will end badly.
Posted by Manorina, Thursday, 4 February 2010 7:19:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy