A follow up on my reply #765
If hedonic inflation of manufacturing in the GDP is a fact, why is it so important? What's the big deal? It sort of makes sense.
Besides, our GDP is streaking upward even without it.
Well, IMO it's a feel good, public opinion ruse adopted in the Clinton years -- focus groups, you know. They like good economic news -- and they would be greatly disturbed by seeing hard figures showing leakage -- the very leakage that the Clinton New Democrat Third Way pukes pushed hard for.
That is, sending technology, wealth and production to developing countries. The Davos world as some call it.
Some call 'em traitors those businessmen who rush to get offshore -- Lenin called them useful idiots. What do you think the Third Way is about?
Some call 'em traitors those businessmen who rush to get offshore -- Lenin called them useful idiots. What do you think the Third Way is about?The Third Way is just another pretext for international socialism. Always was. As for the enablers in the business sector, I tend to think of them as useful idiots, although there are certain malefactors right here on Free Republic who are either on the other side, by virtue of paycheck or nationality...which does tend to call their "U.S." loyalty into question...or they are mentally ill.
We still haven't seen them reply to this:
"Detente" with China Proves Illusory
By William R. Hawkins
Monday, November 21, 2005
President George W. Bush’s trip to China produced no “breakthroughs” – not on trade, nonproliferation, intellectual property protection, or human rights. Indeed, his one day visit to Beijing (November 20) and brief “summit” with Chinese President Hu Jintao was chilly if not downright frosty. Hopefully, that atmosphere may cause a light bulb to go on in the president’s head, signaling that “engagement” with Beijing is a futile process that leaves the initiative in Chinese hands.
When President Bush came into office in 2001, he was poised to take a harder line towards the rising power of China than his predecessor. In 1999, just before he left on an Asian tour, President Bill Clinton claimed “perhaps for the first time in history, the world’s leading nations are not engaged in a struggle with each other for security or territory. The world clearly is coming together.”
President Bush knew this was not true and pledged to “do whatever it takes” to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack. His wariness towards Beijing was validated when on April 1, 2001 a Chinese interceptor rammed an U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane over international waters, forcing it to crash land on Hainan Island – where the Chinese reaped an intelligence bonanza in the form of its high-tech gear.
The September 11 terrorist attacks shifted Washington’s focus to the Middle East. China’s long-time ally Pakistan became a central pivot in the campaign against al-Qaeda, and Beijing used “anti-terrorism” to gain U.S. acceptance for continued oppression of its Moslem population. China also “hosted” the six-party talks meant to deal with the nuclear program of North Korea, part of the “Axis of Evil” along with Iraq and Iran.
The “detente” with Beijing – if there ever really was one – is now growing cold. Despite repeated diplomatic claims of progress, nothing has changed in North Korea. Beijing’s vital interest is still protecting the Pyongyang regime in a divided peninsula. In a rare outburst that was not scripted by the State Department in bland diplomatic boilerplate, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill told students at the Nov. 19 APEC meeting, “I think it's time for the Chinese to take a little more responsibility for cleaning up that mess.” Hill went on to describe the current impasse: “North Korea is saying, we need you first to recognize us, first give us help, give us a lot of economic help, and then we'll think about getting rid of the weapons. But it's going to be the other way around.” The problem is that Beijing shares Pyongyang’s approach, wanting outside help to keep the regime in power and secure. China’s insistence on a “diplomatic solution” is code for its opposition to any use of pressure or sanctions against North Korea.
Meanwhile, China has provided diplomatic support for Iran at the United Nations to shield its nuclear program. It is also increasing economic ties to ward off any sanctions against Tehran. Beijing has become the principle protector of the remaining Axis of Evil countries to keep them from falling prey to the same fate as Iraq. Regime preservation rather than regime change is Chinese policy.
Support for continued “engagement” with China continues to come from those parts of the Bush administration that represent international banking and transnational production. Neither the Treasury nor the Commerce Department put out a statement in the wake of the Bush-Hu summit, for there was nothing for them to say. There was talk at the summit of “a gradual move towards balanced trade,” but with the U.S. deficit with China only growing wider and set to top $200 billion this year, any such talk is misleading. The post-summit statement put out by the Chinese Foreign Ministry continued to call for the handling of trade frictions “through dialogue and consultations,” which means no direct American action to change things. A decade of “consultations” have only masked a situation that has grown rapidly worse.
In traditional diplomatic parlance, trade constitutes “low politics” because it deals with petty private interests. Strategic issues that affect the balance of power between nations is the realm of “high politics.” In the case of China, the “low politics” of special interest groups has too often driven “high politics” off the stage. However, the continued negative impact of US-China trade on the American economy more than outweighs whatever profits particular firms may be making in China. And even some elements of the globalized U.S. business community have started to raise their voices against the massive theft of intellectual property by Chinese rivals. The only mention of this issue in the Chinese Foreign Ministry statement reads, “The measures of the Chinese government in opening markets and protecting intellectual property are very important.” Yes, they are very important to the Chinese, which is why Beijing will continue to reject American wishes and do nothing.
On November 11, the Wall Street Journal trotted out for what seems like the millionth time the tired cliche “encouraging economic integration is key to moving Beijing towards political liberalization” – a meaningless abstraction designed to square the circle between high and low politics. Instead, it marks another area of frustration.
On the first day of his Asian tour, President Bush posed a challenge to the Communist Beijing regime. He listed Taiwan with Japan and South Korea as examples of progress, saying, “Taiwan has delivered prosperity to its people and created a free and democratic Chinese society.” Mainland China was among those states that he said had not made equivalent progress. “As the people of China grow in prosperity, their demands for political freedom will grow as well,” said the U.S. President, expressing a dream that is seen as a nightmare in Beijing.
A month earlier, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited China. At the Central Party School, he lectured students on the need for a more open society. Beijing responded with the white paper “The Building of Political Democracy,” which defined its subject as “the Chinese Communist party governing on behalf of the people” in a “democratic dictatorship.”
With no joy on the trade or democratic reform fronts, strategic matters have taken on more importance – as they should. Trade has been a major source of capital and technology for advancing China’s military-industrial complex, while the Communist dictatorship plots how to project its rising strength in the wider world.
This year’s Pentagon report on China stated that Beijing “in the near term appears to be preparing for potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait, [and] some of China’s military planners are surveying the strategic landscape beyond Taiwan.” Rumsfeld said in Beijing, “A growth in China's power-projection understandably leads other nations to question China's intentions -- and to adjust their behavior in some fashion.”
That adjustment has Washington redeploying forces. The Pentagon is sending more submarines and warplanes to be based on Guam, and will forward deploy an aircraft carrier either to Guam or Hawaii to reduce reaction times to a crisis on the Pacific Rim. Starting in 2004, the Navy has conducted “surge”deployment exercises that have put as many as seven aircraft carriers into the region.
Bill Clinton to the contrary, the struggle between leading nations is still, unfortunately, very much a part of our world.
William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.
(c)Copyright 2001-2006 AmericanEconomicAlert.org, USBIC
