Posted on 01/10/2006 7:43:06 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
That's funny I thought I did. It's about economic strength and the ability to keep pace militarily. True, it will be a few more years (10? less?) before they get close enough to really matter.
The threat of China today is greater than the Soviet threat was. China has an economy, the Soviets did not. The USSR was a third world country except for its military.
Will an even greater economy, one that includes those 800 million outside of the special economic zones, mitigate matters? W.W.II Germany and Japan were fairly prosperous, I believe.
Will the Chi-coms "launch a nuclear first strike on us?" I personally think they are much more apt to than the Soviets ever were. Not out of the blue necessarily but in any confrontation. Once they commit to a confrontation they'll do it, IMO. A nice test would be for the Chi-coms to put missiles in Cuba and see how Washington reacts.
Grenada and Nicaragua were short-lived. We'll see how long Red China has influence with Chávez and others.
Of course Eastern Europe is friendlier now than when they were republics in the U.S.S.R.
I was remiss in not emphasizing economics. It's the economy that's the difference between the old U.S.S.R. and Red China, IMO. One of the greatest one-liners ever would have been someone suggesting that the Ruble replace the dollar as the reserve currency.
Though Red China has tons of problems -- problems that I hope will sink it -- it's its growing economic strength that makes them more dangerous. In no way do I believe that the party will "whither away."
I was against granting China MFN status. If their government changes in the next 10 years, MFN will have succeeded, if not, it'll have been a mistake.
Hey sweetie, any luck finding a source for your ridiculous claim? Or were you delusional?
Well that's just about as close to the crux as you can get.
Meanwhile we'll look for clues of the outcome and keep on truckin' on these threads. :>)
Sounds good. I wasn't in favor of China getting the Olympics either, but if you look at Berlin 1936 and Moscow 1980, both regimes were gone within the next decade or so.
You always read my posts. Why don't you tell us?
Watch out! As usual, you're tilting the insult tally to the "free trader" side, who can always be counted on to insult much more frequently than those who want to preserve the American system.
It's not an insult if you truly are delusional. I guess you can prove me wrong by finding a source for your assertion. (snicker)
You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. But you go on making your facts up. It's one of the cute things we all love about you.
I understand the issue far better than you ever will...because I was FORCED to understand it. After spending years in the business world as sales management executive, I just yesterday finished a "Year End Cash Flow" statement for a moderately large farming operation (not sugar beets).
Many of the farm price support payments do go to very large cooperatives, absentee land owners, etc....fine...get rid of them! No problem there, whatsoever.
However, if you are interested in the actual life of the every day farmer; who, unlike other businesses, has minimal control over the prices paid for product, absolutely no ability to pass along increased input costs to the buyer; all while watching the "value-added" purchasers of his product raking in the millions...do get back to me.
We are talking about a rather low-debt, multi-million dollar operation, paying a couple of $20,000 per year salaries to two owners working 80 hrs/week (would YOU do that?). After figuring all input costs, and using a price for our grain that is completely manipulated by a system that should have been scrapped once everyone had phones, let alone the internet (the Board of Trade); we had a whopping 2% net profit! Whoo-hoo!
That is with the guaranteed government payments included.
If you still think that the price supports are not a gimme for the big campaign producers; if you still cannot understand that in a box of Corn Chex, you are paying for about $.20 worth of corn and $3.00 worth of everything else...do get back to me. If you get rid of the farm subsidies, then let us sell to anyone we want, at any time, anywhere...with no restrictions. WE cannot do that.
Since you are so knowledgeable, please do tell which "crops" Americans are supposed to focus on...we'll get right on it. I'll wait right here; as we need to make more money.
I have been on Free Republic for nearly 8 years. Virtually every word you've said, every cliche, every phrase is something I've heard before. You people never learn, never think, and are militant in your refusal to acknowledge facts.
At the heart of the protectionist fallacy is some idea that mother, nanny state can protect you from the rest of the world. It can decide to throw up barriers to protect domestic industries without penalty, and indeed lead to prosperity. This is not what would happen. Trade wars invite retaliation, and the people who would suffer most are those who are reliant on exports - as we are all reliant on exporting to each other, we all would suffer. Similarly, if we make it easier to trade to each other, we all will prosper. This simple truth has never penetrated the thick cranium of any protectionist idiot because like bratty children, they'll keep on sucking on their thumbs and demand mummy protect them from the mean nasty foreigners.
To conclude - unless you have anything new to say, shut up.
Ivan
There are very few nations that actually have slavery. You are not doing much business with Mauritania or Niger.
If you're referring to some countries having low wages, well I'm afraid most countries start out that way, including the United States. That does not make them "slavers".
Ivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.