May 31, 20214 yr 4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: In reality, yes, but China puts on this act like they're allowing a degree of private enterprise to exist within the confines of an authoritarian system. They promote this illusion of economic freedom. If only in word rather than deed, they've certainly liberalized their economic system since the days of Mao and the Great Leap Forward. There’s no illusion. If people see that, that’s because they want to. The only thing China provides is cheap labor.
May 31, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: They arent capitalism. Not even a little. the left who like to parrot that nonsense just want the same kind of fascist control here. They're certainly not capitalism, but perhaps you can put in a better perspective how they've restructured their economy in the last 50 years. It's certainly not traditionally Marxist in character. 7 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: If you really want to compete you try to break their currency and spark an uprising. But that crap tends to lead to wars. Big ones. Right, and I really don't even know how that could be accomplished, given our economic relationship with them. We depend on them for a great deal of products, and the value of our currency is in many ways linked to their financial power. Isn't most of our debt owned by China? Don't they basically hold a great deal of power over the value of the USD? Couldn't they actually sabotage our currency if they were to drop loads of U.S. Treasuries on the open market?
May 31, 20214 yr I think these articles touch on what I'm getting at: Quote A brief history of China’s liberalization/opening-up It is no coincidence China has grown to be the second largest economy in the world, all since it made the fateful decision to open up its financial system to the rest of the world. In 1979, China lifted the ban on entry of foreign banks. Only it was at the turn of the millennium as China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 that explosive growth erupted. Chinese enterprises would gain access to special loans and leverage rapidly expanding cash reserve for further investment, pledging in 2006 to open up its banking sector completely. By 2011, the number of foreign banking institutions in China grew to nearly 400. Today, China’s banking system and economy prove ever more globalized and formidable. Meanwhile, the Chinese government implemented other strategies to spur globalization such as the "Go Global” directive to encourage enterprises to invest overseas, endorsing and encouraging China’s "Big Four” banks to grow financial services and business operations abroad, as well as the internationalization of the Renminbi, all to expand the country’s presence on the international stage. Open for business: China’s financial liberalization | Emerging Markets Institute (cornell.edu) Quote China has made much progress since it first opened to the outside world in 1978 under the guidance of paramount leader Deng Xiaoping. The devastation caused by Mao Zedong during the Great Leap Forward (1958–60), the Great Famine (1959–61), and the Cultural Revolution (1966–76) led Deng to rethink Marxist ideology and central planning. Rather than adhering to Chairman Mao’s "Little Red Book” and engaging in class struggle, Deng elevated economic development to be the primary goal of socialism. His vision of "market socialism with Chinese characteristics”—and his mantra, "Seek truth from facts”—paved the way for the emergence of the nonstate sector and the return of private entrepreneurs. The success of that vision is evident from the fact that China is now the world’s largest trading nation and the second largest economy. This article tells the story of how China’s pro-market reforms were initiated and continued despite many bumps in the road. What is striking is that many of the reforms began at the local level and were motivated by the desire for greater economic freedom. Entrenched interests opposed departing from state-led development under the plan, but courageous individuals were willing to experiment with market alternatives to increase their freedom and prosperity. Microsoft Word - Working Paper (revised 22 August 2016).docx (cato.org)
May 31, 20214 yr I always thought Nixon's rapprochement with China in the early 70s was a grave misstep. He gets almost universal praise for it, but it really sold out our economic interests. Should've left them wallowing in the rice paddies.
May 31, 20214 yr They need our demand as much or more than we need their supply The real move would be a coordinated effort by the multinationals to move manufacturing somewhere else.
May 31, 20214 yr 50 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: They're certainly not capitalism, but perhaps you can put in a better perspective how they've restructured their economy in the last 50 years. It's certainly not traditionally Marxist in character. Right, and I really don't even know how that could be accomplished, given our economic relationship with them. We depend on them for a great deal of products, and the value of our currency is in many ways linked to their financial power. Isn't most of our debt owned by China? Don't they basically hold a great deal of power over the value of the USD? Couldn't they actually sabotage our currency if they were to drop loads of U.S. Treasuries on the open market? Japan 🇯🇵
May 31, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said: They're certainly not capitalism, but perhaps you can put in a better perspective how they've restructured their economy in the last 50 years. It's certainly not traditionally Marxist in character. Right, and I really don't even know how that could be accomplished, given our economic relationship with them. We depend on them for a great deal of products, and the value of our currency is in many ways linked to their financial power. Isn't most of our debt owned by China? Don't they basically hold a great deal of power over the value of the USD? Couldn't they actually sabotage our currency if they were to drop loads of U.S. Treasuries on the open market? Here's how China works... They steal everything they can, technologically, which allows them to play catch up on the cheap and avoid years and billions of R&D. They order things to be built to juice GDP, no matter if they are needed or not. This has resulted in their financial system essentially being a giant system of fraud that perpetuates endless projects with little or no utility, including entire cities -- yes, cities -- that are completely empty. They subsidize industry in their own country to gut it in others, which keeps their population employed and brings foreign currency into their coffers and allows them to trade. Basically, it's a gigantic system of fraud and corruption to keep their people employed in the short term with the hope that they can reach escape velocity in the long term. The country is a total mess underneath the surface.
May 31, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said: They're certainly not capitalism, but perhaps you can put in a better perspective how they've restructured their economy in the last 50 years. It's certainly not traditionally Marxist in character. Right, and I really don't even know how that could be accomplished, given our economic relationship with them. We depend on them for a great deal of products, and the value of our currency is in many ways linked to their financial power. Isn't most of our debt owned by China? Don't they basically hold a great deal of power over the value of the USD? Couldn't they actually sabotage our currency if they were to drop loads of U.S. Treasuries on the open market? Yes, but dumping it on the market would have huge negative repercussions for them. Aside from an unofficial declaration of war, it would blow up the entire world economy and that would likely result in a civil war domestically.
May 31, 20214 yr On 5/30/2021 at 10:49 PM, TEW said: Federal Reserve We're talking about foreign debt you chum guzzling queef!!!
June 1, 20214 yr On 5/31/2021 at 4:30 AM, EaglesRocker97 said: They're certainly not capitalism, but perhaps you can put in a better perspective how they've restructured their economy in the last 50 years. It's certainly not traditionally Marxist in character. Yep. Even Lenin realized in 1921 that he needs New Economic Policy (NEP), that was actually a capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy So you may very well run the capitalist policy from the economical standpoint, while remaining a totalitarian regime from the political standpoint.
June 1, 20214 yr 5 hours ago, ilross2003 said: Yep. Even Lenin realized in 1921 that he needs New Economic Policy (NEP), that was actually a capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy Good reference. I remember the "NEP-men" from my lecture class on modern Russia years ago. They were a controversial sight the early days of post-Revolutionary Russia. To some, they were shining examples of prosperity in a socialist society, to others they were an abomination. Lenin I believe more or less saw them as a necessary evil, as he realized the need to shift from "war communism" to something more akin to peacetime consumption, where local markets were structured to meet demands at the regional (oblast) level and were intended to draw on local talent in trade and craftwork as a way to ensure a basic level of productivity that would help to build consumer confidence in the first days of the Soviet Union. Lenin and most of the original Bolsheviks realized that they couldn't build a functional economy by shutting out every former tsarist and social democrat, because that's where the knowledge and skill was. The overwhelming majority of the population was agricultural in 1917, and as much as they promoted the notion of their economic prominence in the countryside, the peasantry didn't have the technical and linguistic skill for it. Lenin basically hedged and was willing to adapt if it was in the best interest of Soviet prosperity, but Stalin absolutely hated the NEP and detested the thought that anyone who had espoused anything remotely supportive of imperial or democratic policies was an "enemy of the people" with little public value other than to be an object of ridicule. Rather than plan for peace, he insisted on what was essentially a continuation of war communism by internationalizing the revolution and centralizing Russian authority over the semi-autonomous regions like Ukraine and Belarus. Instead of using local networks to meet regional needs in a way that would promote more uniform economic development across the USSR, encourage social integration, and foster a sense of local control and pride, he essentially Russified the undertaking by requisitioning local products and funneling them through Moscow to ethnically Russian regions, literally starving and dispossessing the Central Asian communities of Uzbeks and Kazakhs, as well as any group of ethnically Russian peoples that also an embedded sense of national pride, like Ukrainians. To go along with all of this, Stalin quickly turned course on the NEP-men after taking over. Once promoted as productive community members, they were now derided as a bourgeois element engaged in counterrevolutionary activity. Ironically, Stalin was none of the things that he promoted in terms of ethnicity or productivity. He was a poor Georgian who neither intellectually or economically productive. After failing out of school, he garnered a reputation for pulling bank heists and railroad bombings. His self-styled image as a "builder" was little more than a cover for what he really was: an agent of chaos. Lenin knew this. He saw Stalin as a boor and a misguided Marxist who was a destructive force within the Party, but Lenin had supported Stalin's promotion to General Secretary because, ironically, his vindictiveness made him highly knowledgeable of its members and their loyalties. He kept tabs on what people said and did and played individuals against one another, so he was tasked with exposing "counterrevolutionary activity" during the Russian Civil War. Ironically, it was this particular ability that allowed him to so effectively purge and centralize the Party and swiftly make himself an autocrat following Lenin's death. While on his death bed, Lenin supposedly warned those close to him that Stalin was madman who could bring ruin to the Communist Party. Lenin must've foolishly thought that he could exploit Stalin's maniacal tendencies to combat subversion while controlling his most destructive impulses, but he couldn't have it both ways. The same things that made Stalin an asset against the White Russians and Mensheviks made him a total liability in his own party once he firmly gripped the levers of power.
June 1, 20214 yr 45 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: "V.I. LENIN! VLADIMIR ILYCH ULINANOV!" Might be some good summer reading for you.
June 1, 20214 yr Would you support a military strike on Russia for their cyber attacks against our country? the current attacks are on necessary infrastructure; energy and food products manufacturers or deliverers. nation states that allow it to continue need to be destroyed. it is our national interest. Also, I am not aware of the USA doing this to other countries like Russia, China and N. Korea. I know about Stuxnet but nothing other than that.
June 2, 20214 yr 53 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: Would you support a military strike on Russia for their cyber attacks against our country? Doctrine of proportional response would call for a counterattack in kind.
June 2, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Doctrine of proportional response would call for a counterattack in kind. Do we even have the capability? I never hear Russia complain about their Electric Grid being shut down, or their food supply being attacked or their credit industry hacked.
June 2, 20214 yr 17 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Good reference. I remember the "NEP-men" from my lecture class on modern Russia years ago. They were a controversial sight the early days of post-Revolutionary Russia. To some, they were shining examples of prosperity in a socialist society, to others they were an abomination. Lenin I believe more or less saw them as a necessary evil, as he realized the need to shift from "war communism" to something more akin to peacetime consumption, where local markets were structured to meet demands at the regional (oblast) level and were intended to draw on local talent in trade and craftwork as a way to ensure a basic level of productivity that would help to build consumer confidence in the first days of the Soviet Union. Lenin and most of the original Bolsheviks realized that they couldn't build a functional economy by shutting out every former tsarist and social democrat, because that's where the knowledge and skill was. The overwhelming majority of the population was agricultural in 1917, and as much as they promoted the notion of their economic prominence in the countryside, the peasantry didn't have the technical and linguistic skill for it. Lenin basically hedged and was willing to adapt if it was in the best interest of Soviet prosperity, but Stalin absolutely hated the NEP and detested the thought that anyone who had espoused anything remotely supportive of imperial or democratic policies was an "enemy of the people" with little public value other than to be an object of ridicule. Rather than plan for peace, he insisted on what was essentially a continuation of war communism by internationalizing the revolution and centralizing Russian authority over the semi-autonomous regions like Ukraine and Belarus. Instead of using local networks to meet regional needs in a way that would promote more uniform economic development across the USSR, encourage social integration, and foster a sense of local control and pride, he essentially Russified the undertaking by requisitioning local products and funneling them through Moscow to ethnically Russian regions, literally starving and dispossessing the Central Asian communities of Uzbeks and Kazakhs, as well as any group of ethnically Russian peoples that also an embedded sense of national pride, like Ukrainians. To go along with all of this, Stalin quickly turned course on the NEP-men after taking over. Once promoted as productive community members, they were now derided as a bourgeois element engaged in counterrevolutionary activity. Ironically, Stalin was none of the things that he promoted in terms of ethnicity or productivity. He was a poor Georgian who neither intellectually or economically productive. After failing out of school, he garnered a reputation for pulling bank heists and railroad bombings. His self-styled image as a "builder" was little more than a cover for what he really was: an agent of chaos. Lenin knew this. He saw Stalin as a boor and a misguided Marxist who was a destructive force within the Party, but Lenin had supported Stalin's promotion to General Secretary because, ironically, his vindictiveness made him highly knowledgeable of its members and their loyalties. He kept tabs on what people said and did and played individuals against one another, so he was tasked with exposing "counterrevolutionary activity" during the Russian Civil War. Ironically, it was this particular ability that allowed him to so effectively purge and centralize the Party and swiftly make himself an autocrat following Lenin's death. While on his death bed, Lenin supposedly warned those close to him that Stalin was madman who could bring ruin to the Communist Party. Lenin must've foolishly thought that he could exploit Stalin's maniacal tendencies to combat subversion while controlling his most destructive impulses, but he couldn't have it both ways. The same things that made Stalin an asset against the White Russians and Mensheviks made him a total liability in his own party once he firmly gripped the levers of power. Very good post! It's interesting, that War Communism policy has driven Russia directly into the Famine of 1921–22, and then NEP helped Russia to climb out of it. Stalin abandoned NEP with his Great Break policy centered on the Collectivization, that resulted in the Famine of 1932–33. On the other hand, the industrialization process during the Great Break was a big success, bringing the Soviet Union into the top three industrial countries along with US and Germany. So we can see here, how the totalitarian regimes may achieve economical and political greatness, while in the same time its population is mightily suffering.
June 2, 20214 yr 8 hours ago, jsdarkstar said: Would you support a military strike on Russia for their cyber attacks against our country? I would not. As a history proves, any kind of a military strike on Russia does not end very well for the striker...
June 2, 20214 yr 3 hours ago, ilross2003 said: I would not. As a history proves, any kind of a military strike on Russia does not end very well for the striker... *Japan has entered the chat.*
June 2, 20214 yr 10 hours ago, jsdarkstar said: Do we even have the capability? I would suspect we have some kind of cyberwarfare program, but considering much of our military tech operates on 40 year-old legacy systems, it's probably nowhere nearly as sophisticated as Russia's.
June 2, 20214 yr 11 hours ago, jsdarkstar said: Do we even have the capability? I never hear Russia complain about their Electric Grid being shut down, or their food supply being attacked or their credit industry hacked. 17 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I would suspect we have some kind of cyberwarfare program, but considering much of our military tech operates on 40 year-old legacy systems, it's probably nowhere nearly as sophisticated as Russia's. TAO says hello. Nobody can actually touch us in this regard. We always have been and will continue to be (for at least the next couple decades) the preeminent cyber super power. Note that the dynamic differs greatly as far as providing conventional military defense vs cyber security defense. And when it comes to private companies investing in enterprise security, US cyber command can only do so much to lead that horse to water.
June 2, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, Bill said: *Japan has entered the chat.* Are you talking about Japanese-Russian War 1904 - 1905? Nah... Eventually, the Russians got them in 1945: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War. Had to wait 40 years, so what? There were times, when they had to wait much longer, like under Mongol Rule for more than 200 years, but the result was always the same.
Create an account or sign in to comment