The Forum > Article Comments > China versus the US: it is serious > Comments
China versus the US: it is serious : Comments
By Chris Lewis, published 13/10/2010Will tensions between the US and China increase, and should Australia continue to side with the US?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by mac, Thursday, 14 October 2010 7:38:44 AM
| |
vanna,
As i have indicated before, we need extensive studies to show cost and benefit, especially in terms of competing with such a well-organised giant such as China, at least in terms of its communist leadership to do what it wants given recent policy trends. My gut feeling agrees with you, and I would like nothing better to test these thoughts in some kind of fair dinkum institution. You would think such an issue is of critical importance. I for one, though a supporter of liberalism and freer trade, does not wish to rest on the laurels of past assumptions. Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 14 October 2010 7:43:02 AM
| |
Chris Lewis,
In some ways China could be duplicating the US. They built everything up from the ground, but eventually they become fat and lazy and start importing everything and lose their innovation and desire to produce anything. Some other country or race then takes over. Posted by vanna, Thursday, 14 October 2010 7:53:27 AM
| |
Here's an interesting article on the currency manipulations and the U.S. trade deficit with China by American Manufacturing. org.
http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/node/73 Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 14 October 2010 8:06:54 AM
| |
Vanna,
Yes, I have no problem with new nations rising and using their advantages. After all, without free trade and greater interdependence the world does not have much at all if wants to find common ground and deal with all the big issues. What i do have a problem is with a rise of a mercantile nation which undoes much of the good work of the 20th century, although the West too is simply avoiding making the necessary reforms to enhance their productiveness and innovation. Nevertheless, finding the appropriate balance between freer trade and protectionism; production and consumption; and national and international considerations, remains a goal of scholarship yet unfulfilled. That is why Western nations have experienced such extremely different trends over the past century, especially since the 1970s. Just look at the many former marxists who are now free trade capitalists as they often go from one extreme to another in our ongoing search for "the" answer. The key, I would for hope for Australian policy makers, is always what is the best balance. That is why your thoughts about government have some merit and should always be explored, not studied once and assumed wrong or right. Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 14 October 2010 8:08:41 AM
| |
Australia, because of our visionless, small-minded politicians, is playing a dangerous game when it continues to follow the Imperialist Americans into war after war.
America already is the most hated country in the world and its policy of 'endless war to gain resources and profit' will guarantee that those who hate it will increase even further. Besides, China is our major trading partner and, eventually, will not take kindly to us supporting America and neither will our neighbours with whom we must co-exist. Put your indoctrination aside and see America for what it is: a warmongering nation trying to control the world for its own exclusive benefit! http://www.dangerouscreation.com Posted by David G, Thursday, 14 October 2010 9:44:59 AM
|
'Western societies cannot compete with China', that's certainly true if the West allows China to continue with its merchantilist policies,but as you pointed out, there are signs of resistance,so hopefully China won't have a free ride much longer. I'd agree that the 'adjustment' period might lead to disaster,given China's autocratic system of government.
We could certainly prevent the Chinese from controlling our natural resources, they don't play fair, so we shouldn't either, our policies towards Chinese economic penetration seem remarkably naive. Our politicians are more influenced by 'free trade' fantasies than political economy.