For more than a century, countless American intellectuals and business leaders have looked enviously at how foreign countries planned and managed their economies. Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives drooled over Otto von Bismarck, and today every self-proclaimed global strategist gazes at Chinas managed capitalism like a kid with his nose pressed against a candy-store window.
Of course, China has made enormous progress since it decided that markets are a more desirable means of improving the lot of its citizens than organized mass murder. But Chinas fans still have an enormous blind spot.
Ask yourself this: Why are we in this financial crisis?
Any short list of reasons would include a lack of transparency in markets and regulatory rule-making; collusion between business and government; the politicization of lending practices (including the socialization of risk and the privatization of profit through giant governmental entities like Fannie Mae); and, of course, simple greed.
Does anyone honestly think China doesnt have these problems ten times over? It has no free press, no democratic accountability, and no truly independent regulators.
After every Chinese earthquake, we discover that safety inspectors couldnt be trusted to oversee the construction of schools and hospitals. And were supposed to believe that Chinas corrupt model produces toxic baby formula but spic-and-span finances?
Theres an honest debate about how much blame institutions like Fannie Mae and laws like the Community Reinvestment Act deserve for the financial crisis, but few honest observers dispute that they played some kind of deleterious role. Well, Chinas entire economy is one big Fannie Mae, its laws one big Community Reinvestment Act.
Im willing to bet that the bill for that comes due long, long, long before China catches up with the United States of America.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/05/2008 10:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Without America as a consumer of its goods, China is nothing. They are a producer of convenience goods, and with exceptions of course, we could do without their stuff.
#2
Without America as a consumer of its goods, China is nothing.
Actually, the US produces - by value - most of its own goods, since invention, design, product improvement, marketing, et al are all done in the US. Only the manual assembly and manual packaging are carried out in China. Fordists - people who believe that manual assembly is the biggest value-add in the supply chain and assembly workers should be paid UAW wages - may disagree, but the fact is that China's place in the supply chain can be taken by any country with low labor and land costs and a reasonably stable government. And that is indeed what is happening, as names like Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia and the Philippines start to show up on country of origin labels.
#3
I disagree Democracy is not a boon to no corruption. The bigger the State Economy bigger corruption. I doubt that USA have much less State Economy than China and State Economy have been increasing in all Democracies because the elections favor Politics "giving" and taking from X to Y. Democracy will have to prove that can live and still be at front without a Westernized Culture and Morals and i doubt it will be able to that. All Government agencies of a Democracy work to stiffle and augment their power so the state can grow since it has popular support while a Dictatorships tries to maintain the political status squo so tries to change much less.
I think the only solution is that maximum tax rates should be in Constituition. Those that disagree make another country.
#5
I doubt that USA have much less State Economy than China
I wouldn't be so sure. The Chinese government is the majority shareholder in most of China's equivalent of the Fortune 100. Banking, insurance, heavy equipment, aerospace, electronics - the Chinese government owns it all.
#6
Zhang, I think you are underselling the Chinese cultural advantage. They are great method people. Show them how to do something and they will reliably repeat that method with impressive precision.
Try doing the same with Malays or Banglas.
What the Chinese are not good at (culturally) is figuring out how do something without a method or figuring out how something can be improved (relative to Westerners).
#7
phil_b: Try doing the same with Malays or Banglas.
I don't know about the Bangladeshis, but I have a fair amount of electronics bought in the late '80's and early '90's that says "Made in Malaysia". Assembly work with soldering irons and screwdrivers just ain't that complicated. It certainly doesn't rate paying the Chinese more than Malaysians or Thais, especially since Chinese real estate is actually more expensive than in Malaysia or Thailand (thanks to Chinese government hoarding).
#9
CHINESE MIL FORUM > RUSSIA TO REVERSE PRIVATIZATION PROCESS, giving Russ companies a US$200.0Bilyuhn Bailout of their own???
Also, WORLD MIL FORUM [paraph] > CHINESE STATES OF AMERICA [West/Pacific Coast, espec California]LIKELY TO DOMINATE POST-BREAKUP USA [Igor Panarin Scenario]. CATALYST TO INDUCE BREAK-UP SCENARIO WOULD BE FOR POTUS-ELECT OBAMA TO BE SHOT/ASSASSINATED!?; + US STATE DEPT DESIRES TO FORM AN INTERNATIONAL "ALLIANCE OF YOUTH MOVEMENT" TO COMBAT TERROR, POLITICAL OPPRESSION, AND CRIME, FOSTER AND PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS; + CHINA'S POVERTY-STRICKEN POPULATION DECLINES TO 1.4MILYUHN FROM 250.0MILYUHN DURING ERA OF MAO ZEDONG [aka Mao Tse-Tung]. Article prob is that Author uses or denotes figure described as "1,400 Milyuhn(s)", a sum which inversely subjectively indics an INCREASE, NOT DECREASE, to 1.4BILYUHN = 1,400,000,000???
#10
phil_b: I'll bet all of those made in Malaysia products came from Malaysian Chinese owned factories and largely manned by Malaysian Chinese workers.
I can't speak to the ethnicity of the assembly line workers, but I can say this - the only stainless steel knives and can openers I've had rust on me after a couple of uses had one country of origin in common - China. I don't think that's an assembly line worker problem.
The barbarism in Mumbai and the economic crisis at home have largely overshadowed an otherwise singular event: the ratification of military and strategic cooperation agreements between Iraq and the United States. They must not pass unnoted. They were certainly noted by Iran, which fought fiercely to undermine the agreements. Tehran understood how a formal U.S.-Iraqi alliance endorsed by a broad Iraqi consensus expressed in a freely elected parliament changes the strategic balance in the region. For the United States, this represents the single most important geopolitical advance in the region since Henry Kissinger turned Egypt from a Soviet client into an American ally. If we don't blow it with too hasty a withdrawal from Iraq, we will have turned a chronically destabilizing enemy state at the epicenter of the Arab Middle East into an ally.
Also largely overlooked at home was the sheer wonder of the procedure that produced Iraq's consent: classic legislative maneuvering with no more than a tussle or two -- tame by international standards (see YouTube: "Best Taiwanese Parliament Fights of All Time!") -- over the most fundamental issues of national identity and direction. The only significant opposition bloc was the Sadrists, a mere 30 seats out of 275. The ostensibly pro-Iranian religious Shiite parties resisted Tehran's pressure and championed the agreement. As did the Kurds. The Sunnis put up the greatest fight. But their concern was that America would be withdrawing too soon, leaving them subject to overbearing and perhaps even vengeful Shiite dominance. The Sunnis, who only a few years ago had boycotted provincial elections, bargained with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, trying to exploit his personal stake in agreements he himself had negotiated. They did not achieve their maximum objectives. But they did get formal legislative commitments for future consideration of their grievances, from amnesty to further relaxation of the de-Baathification laws.
That any of this democratic give-and-take should be happening in a peaceful parliament just two years after Iraq's descent into sectarian hell is in itself astonishing. Nor is the setting of a withdrawal date terribly troubling. The deadline is almost entirely symbolic. U.S. troops must be out by Dec. 31, 2011 -- the weekend before the Iowa caucuses, which, because God is merciful, will arrive again only in the very fullness of time. Moreover, that date is not just distant but flexible. By treaty, it can be amended. If conditions on the ground warrant, it will be.
True, the war is not over. As Gen. David Petraeus repeatedly insists, our (belated) successes in Iraq are still fragile. There has already been an uptick in terror bombings, which will undoubtedly continue as what's left of al-Qaeda, the Sadrist militias and the Iranian-controlled "special groups" try to disrupt January's provincial elections. The more long-term danger is that Iraq's reborn central government becomes too strong and, by military or parliamentary coup, the current democratic arrangements are dismantled by a renewed dictatorship that abrogates the alliance with the United States. Such disasters are possible. But if our drawdown is conducted with the same acumen as was the surge, not probable. A self-sustaining, democratic and pro-American Iraq is within our reach. It would have two hugely important effects in the region.
First, it would constitute a major defeat for Tehran, the putative winner of the Iraq war, according to the smart set. Iran's client, Moqtada al-Sadr, still hiding in Iran, was visibly marginalized in parliament -- after being militarily humiliated in Basra and Baghdad by the new Iraqi security forces. Moreover, the major religious Shiite parties were the ones that negotiated, promoted and assured passage of the strategic alliance with the United States, against the most determined Iranian opposition.
Second is the regional effect of the new political entity on display in Baghdad -- a flawed yet functioning democratic polity with unprecedented free speech, free elections and freely competing parliamentary factions. For this to happen in the most important Arab country besides Egypt can, over time (over generational time, the time scale of the war on terror), alter the evolution of Arab society. It constitutes our best hope for the kind of fundamental political-cultural change in the Arab sphere that alone will bring about the defeat of Islamic extremism. After all, newly sovereign Iraq is today more engaged in the fight against Arab radicalism than any country on earth, save the United States -- with which, mirabile dictu, it has now thrown in its lot.
#2
The point about how long we have to be committed to these countries should not be underestimated. Look how long it took Korea to move from armistice to democracy. And I think neither Korea or Japan is firmly committed to representative government yet.
#3
What I find most amusing about all of this are the foaming-at-the-mouth, "anti-war", Bush-bashing fanatics who are beside themselves now that the situation in Iraq has a measure of demonstrated and undeniable success. Which, if it continues on it's current trajectory, will result in the biggest foreign policy victory and advancement in the last 20 years. I think you would have to go back to Reagan's victory in the Cold War to find anything remotely comparable.
Liberals can't bear to stand it, and will never acknowledge it, for a host of reasons. To name a few of the more obvious:
1. It validates the use of military intervention to effect real political change when necessary and in the best interests of our national security.
2. It validates the use of aggressive, offensive military action as a strategy against radical, islamic terrorism. Since 9/11 we have fought two wars and in all that time, there hasn't been a repeat of that terrible and tragic day.
3. It validates Bush's core belief that liberty and individual freedom is a human desire, not just an American or Western desire.
4. It also validates his core belief that democracy is not contrained by culture or religion. While certain cultures and religions may be more welcoming or accepting of it, representative democracy in it's true form is blind to race, gender, religion, class, and creed. And Iraq is slowly proving it.
5. There is still much more to learn and know about everything that went into Bush's call to war (did he really know there were no WMDs before ordering the invasion?). But assuming the scholars and historians fail to uncover a smoking gun that incriminates him beyond a reasonable doubt, as I believe will be the case, the Iraq success could well end up securing a favorable legacy for a man I personally believe to be honorable, honest, and guided by sound principles, although he's not the smartest guy in the room at all times and ranks near the bottom in terms of his communication skills and savvy.
On a related note, last week Tom Friedman of the NYT, generally someone I don't agree with, wrote a piece talking about the newfound transparency and freedom of press that was taking place in the new Iraqi government relative to the days of Saddam. He was pointing out that it is a wonderful thing to see and offers a glimmer of hope that all was not a waste, after all.
I hope, in the end, that turns out to be the final verdict.
#4
As I've said before, Bush is a principled man who does what he thinks is right according to those principles. He showed tremendous courage in forcing the Surge through against extremely heavy opposition, thus preventing another Viet Nam-like military defeat. Our nation, and particularly our military, owes him a very large debt for that alone. His traitorous political opponents wanted desperately for America to lose in Iraq; that Bush and the military, by virtue of blood, sweat and raw courage, triumphed over them is by far the most signal victory of his eight years in office.
I haven't always agreed with him and I've been quite angry with him on occasion (immigration amnesty), but I respect him immensely because I think he has returned honor and dignity to the office of the President of the United States.
That was something sadly lacking in his predecessor's administration and which I suspect will also be sadly lacking in his successor's administration.
I'd be proud to shake G.W. Bush's hand and thank him for his service. I wouldn't give BJ or BO the courtesy of a greeting, much less shake their hands. They deserve nothing more than utter contempt.
#5
I have to agree with JM7800. I disagree with a few of W's actions (especially immigration), but on the big pic topics, he hit it right, took the heat, and handled himself with class and discipline against traitorous and scurrilous attacks from the opposition and unprincipled media
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/05/2008 21:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I remember seeing the jubilant parties on Election night when Obama was declared the victor, and wistfully wishing we had the same excitement for victory in Iraq.
#7
As luck would have it, I may have a chance to meet the President and shake his hand this weekend. I've always wanted to meet the man, look him straight in the eye, and take measure of what I see behind the veil.
Really, I just want to thank him for his service to our country and let him know that there are still some of us out there who respect him and the way he's carried himself as POTUS. Per JM7800's point, he is a principled man who does what he thinks is right according to those principles.
Fact is, dude took a lot of flak for doing what he did, what I believe he had to do, what I feel I would have done myself had I been in his position. Let's face it, at the end of the day, you cannot argue with results.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
By Charles Krauthammer
