Jean-Philippe :
I don't require you to believe in anything, I don't care what your ideology is, I require you to understand that Capitalism is not about stability and harmony, but about growth and therefore some level of instability. Managing a capitalistic economy successfully is all about controlling the level of instability and minimizing its destructive effects, and the national debt is a tool to do so.
The current crisis was created by a discrepancy between monetary growth and economic growth, it is this discrepancy that creates bubbles via speculation. Those crisis happens just like the human body every now and then get diseases, fortunately we seldom die at the first disease we get. Nonetheless, a disease can indeed kill us, and it's also possible for the capitalist economy.
I never said that public debt could grow infinitely, simply that current levels are not catastrophic, but in fact necessary to ensure the continued working of the economy in socially decent conditions. However, once this crisis is over, a tightening of the fiscal policy will be necessary to reinstate a check of the national debt.
If you see theology in there, it's because you want to see it, and are eager to bring the discussion on an ideological ground.
Me:
You don’t require me to believe in Capitalism. You just require me to understand that Capitalism is blah, blah, blah. I don’t give a damn what Capitalism is about. It’s just a passing fad used to justify exploitation. So if you are going to debate this point, how about leaving Capitalism out of it?
We don’t have a Capitalistic system any way. If we did, interest rates would follow the demand for money. What you have with the Fed is anti-free markets. The free market people on this forum, of which I am not one, will be glad to inform you of that. So let’s deal with the issues at hand and leave Marx out of it.
You say that present debt is not only not a problem but part of the solution. Correct me if I’m in error. Your statement of how the present problem came about is meaningless to me. It seems to involve your Capitalistic theology. I say it came about because of scams manipulating the Fed and the regulatory system. It was made possible by the dismantling of Glass-Steagall by the Fed and finally the outright repealing of Glass-Steagall by Congress in 1999. Yes, and with a little legislation in 1984. For details see cites below. This is not some wild crackpot theory, there are Nobel Prize winners in economics on both sides of this issue.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... emise.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/1 ... 01557.htmlhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=homehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%8 ... Bliley_ActI know there are some pro Gramm-Leach-Bliley cites out there, but I couldn’t easily find them, but with a little persistence you should be able to find some. Of course, hindsight does make smoke screens a little less opaque.
Your accusation of ideology is baseless and absurd. Which of my arguments have a bases in ideology? If you had spent more time on this Forum, you would be aware that I reject the ideological dichotomy. On the other hand, your arguments are based on Capitalistic ideology.
Jean-Philippe :
First, checking the debt load of China and Russia may not be as insightful as it is for countries with a democratic practice and relatively transparent accounting systems. An analyst like Gordon Chang, who may not work for CNBC but is still a believable analyst with regard to China estimated this debt at 81% of GDP in 2006. And before being taunted to refer to him, I hurry to precise I often am in disagreement with his views, but the one casting doubt at numbers directly coming from a one-party system well-known for a certain level of corruption seems reasonable to me.
As for the rest, you basically say that Russia and China will stand better the collapse of capitalism, possibly, I don't know, but I don't think it's an option any of this country does look at as a desirable one.
Me:
My opinion came from figures for public debt as listed in the CIA World Factbook. I didn’t say that it was a desirable course of action, I said that China would prefer it to Nuclear War. However, this is at the present time. What is desirable twenty years from now may be a little different.
Jean-Philippe :
You're suspecting wrongly because I have the fortune of being born in a democracy which considers history as a science and endeavors to get an objective understanding of it by providing a multitude of contradicting points of view. On the contrary, chinese current leaders have been educated within a very strict ideology (they basically are the children of the cultural revolution), and are likely ignorant of whole parts of their own history (even the more recent ones, ask a chinese about what happened at Tian An Men in 89)
As for Taiwan, taking it by force would be the most unproductive thing to do for China, first because Taiwan would be destroyed, and second because their own coastal cities (Shanghai, Shenzen, Guangzhou, Hongkong) would be destroyed. Nobody forced China to keep Hongkong in the state they find it in 97, but they did, and today it's easier for me to go to HK than it is for a mainland chinese. The nationalistic stance against Taiwan is for internal purpose, because nationalism is the last thing that prevent a large proportion of Chinese to care too much about the social problems and to act violently about them (not that social uprisings are uncommon in today's China, but so far they've been contained at a local level).
Me:
Yes, hundreds of millions of Americans have been born in our wonderful country with it’s wonderful educational system, and how many of them have even the vaguest idea of what the Opium Wars were, or what they were about?
I strongly suspect that the members of the Chinese Government know more about Chinese History than you do, but maybe not as much as you think you know.
If you take college level history courses in the United States for a degree in history, then you might get something besides propaganda, otherwise, you get propaganda. Only most Americans don’t realize that it’s propaganda.
Just recently most Americans believed that Iraq had been the party responsible for 9/11. I doubt if one person in a thousand realizes France’s role in out becoming a nation.
Your statement of the Chinese Taiwan conflict shows a total lack of historical perspective. At one time, we put our Seventh Fleet in the Taiwanese Straits. Yes, at the moment, it may be convenient for China for things to remain as they are in regards to Taiwan. However, when they felt otherwise, they weren’t allowed to exercise what they felt was their right. Americans tend to have a very short attention span, the Chinese perspective is a bit longer. Remember, China considers Taiwan as part of China. There are Chinese-Taiwanese who are fanatically anti-Communist. They are in the Taiwanese government. Again, you seem to feel that events are frozen in time. That the World will always be as it is today.
As far as your present war scenario is concerned, I wasn’t aware that Taiwan had nuclear weapons. Have I missed something here?
I made no argument that China was going to take Taiwan back at the present, nor even in the near future. I simply stated that when they were ready to, they would. I am assuming that they would then have the power to ignore any American objections on the issue. You seem to be arguing that China is deterred from taking Taiwan at the present for non-military reasons. I couldn’t agree more.
Hong Kong is totally different than Taiwan. However, China hasn’t forgotten how Hong Kong was acquired by Great Briton. Yes, the situation in Hong Kong is exactly what China wants. It’s only a matter of time before Hong Kong will merge with China. The Chinese economy will have to change a bit before that happens. However, change is something that the Chinese economy is doing quite well.
Jean-Philippe :
I haven't been disdainful of anybody. Besides, I don't have to be disdainful of somebody to disagree with them.
As for saying that China will have the largest internal market on Earth within a decade, I am not saying it won't be so, but I think it just is a belief not a certainty, you seem very fond of theology so maybe you need to hold such belief, I don't and I am happy to just acknowledge that there is a lot of uncertainties as to the future of China. I hope China will continue to develop, because I don't think a collapse would be a good thing for anybody, but I also hope that it will develop in a more harmonious manner, maybe a bit slower on an economic point of view but faster in terms of politics and on a social point of view, that it will also check its development with an ecological awareness. On this last point, I have some hope since Pan Yue happens to be a member of the current chinese government, and seems well-aware that the current economic growth cannot be sustained much longer :
So I think Pan Yue may have an issue with your belief that China will become the largest market on Earth in the next decade, or maybe would he rephrase it slightly into China becoming the largest dumping ground on Earth.
Me:
This hardly seems respectful.
Jean-Philippe :
The less than a decade development of China that will assert itself as the world dominant power is a paranoid fairytale that a few TV pundits entertain to ensure their ratings, fear-mongers always had this populist appeal;
Me:
Of course the above was a misstatement of my position, which seems to be one of your standard practices.
I fail to see where any of my positions require theology, perhaps you could give an example? If this projection is suppose to be a invalid, by all means show me something. Oh you did show me something.
Let me see, from Business Week Magazine 7/11/2005
“A Courageous Voice For A Greener China”
Just the ending.
Pan's may be a lone voice in the wilderness, but his message is one that other Chinese officials would do well to heed before it's too late.
Me:
Four years ago. Yes, China has a pollution problem. This is hardly news. Are they trying to do something about it? Yes. Will it drastically impact growth projections? I don’t know of anyone of note who thinks that they will. Mr. Pan has his office, and his perspective, but it is hardly the perspective of the Chinese Government.
If this is the best you can do to refute my projection, well, I will let those who want to believe, believe.
Actually, I accept one of your criticisms as valid. I should have said probably. I made it a flat statement of fact, which only proves that even someone as incomparably brilliant as myself can err.
I share your hope that China will change it’s priorities. I have in-laws who live in China, and right now it’s not a nice place to live. However, I understand some of the factors which drive China’s effort to industrialize. I’m not sure that they are justified, but their leadership is in a better position to judge priorities than I am.
In the context of an ideal World, I would totally oppose China’s present course. However, it’s not an ideal World. There are a lot of nasty countries in it, such as the United States of America, which will use force to advance their agenda if they can get away with it.
However, what is in China’s interest is not in America’s interest, and I believe that our present course of action is nothing less than economic treason. Actually, it seems to me to be advancing beyond the state of merely economic treason.
“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler”, A. Einstein
“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” A. Einstein.