China pushes back against Paulson

CNN ^

[maui_hawaii]

Beijing (FORTUNE) -- Senior U.S. officials, led by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, arrived inside the Stalinist-style Great Hall of the People Thursday morning, briefed and breakfasted and eager to offer guidance to Chinese leaders on how to become a "responsible stakeholder" in the global economy.

But Vice Premier Wu Yi had other ideas. Like an impatient schoolmistress, she opened this historic gathering with a lecture. Her talk was one part history lesson (China has 5,000 years experience as a global citizen) and one part 21st century civics lesson (the goal is a "socialist harmonious society"), with no sign that her regime sees any need for major economic reform.

[ponder life]

Indeed. A congress which he has heavy manipulative influence over with his company's individual campaign contributions... K-Street epitomized.

Who is the puppet? Hence, all the more reason no one such as him should have been picked.

I hope you realize that your general point of view is beginning to sound very anti-Bourgeoisie. Those were the beginning views of those prior to the overthrow of the ruling class and thereby establishing a Proliteriat.

[GOP_1900AD]

It's shocking how Western firms (including ones I work at / have worked at) kowtow to Communist ways of doing things in order to have a foot in the door in the PRC. They go in the face of free market and capitalist principles. No real capitalist would go lick the boots of a Communist - if that is the price of doing business then there are limits. Some business is too dirty to go after. I know, I am just an old fuddy duddy prude in this regard, not one of these New Age "sharks" who would kiss the areses of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro in order to say they made a buck in Commie country X.

[Paul Ross]

I'm sure Paulson's counter part(s) did not have a hawkish or negative view toward America.

Blah, blah. Your certitude is backed up by what precisely? This is the same PRC CCP which now has pushed through against all trade fairness rules...a Six-To-One trade imbalance.

[Paul Ross]

I hope you realize that your general point of view is beginning to sound very anti-Bourgeoisie. Those were the beginning views of those prior to the overthrow of the ruling class and thereby establishing a Proliteriat.

No. It is describing the Reagan Revolution which is part and parcel of something that you clearly don't comprehend: DEMOCRACY.

The concept of self-rule.

[ponder life]

No. It is describing the Reagan Revolution which is part and parcel of something that you clearly don't comprehend: DEMOCRACY.

The concept of self-rule.

I understand democracy and self rule alot better than you think. I know that Paulson was nominated by an elected official (known as George Bush) and confirmed by the senate (also made up of elected officials).

I also know, that no matter how powerful CEO's and executives are, they have to answer to stock holders. And can be easily removed from their posts.

I know that lobby groups are funded by corporations, but I also know that anyone can form a lobby group. No one is stopping you from forming an anti-trade lobby group to oppose the corporations from doing business in China.

BTW, Reagan fired all traffic controllers for striking.

[ponder life]

Your certitude is backed up by what precisely?

What I find ironic about your point of view, is that China will actually develop more industry, both in manufacturing and information, as their markets open up (if done gradually). Something that I doubt you want to happen (more industry in China).

In many ways, I actually agree with you. But then again, I'm looking for a different outcome.

[ponder life]

I know, I am just an old fuddy duddy prude in this regard, not one of these New Age "sharks" who would kiss the areses of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro in order to say they made a buck in Commie country X.

Well, there are alot of countries America does not do business in (or very limited). Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, Pakistan, Ukraine, Boswana.....the list goes on, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. There are those in the Senate who want to do business with Cuba. Cuba, a country that still has a dictator.

America needs to stand on her principles. I'm voting against anyone that wants to open trade with Cuba as long as Castro is in power. Are you guys with me on this ? !!

[Paul Ross]

I understand democracy and self rule alot better than you think.

And then everything you iterate afterwards disregards the unrepresentativeness of those you are backing. And few if any choices are offered between the camps...despite dramatically growing evidence of the disconnect from the populace.

BTW, Reagan fired all traffic controllers for striking.

And rightfully so. That was a national security decision. The ones who went back to work weren't. So what's your point?

[Paul Ross]

But then again, I'm looking for a different outcome.

You mean like this? ;-)

The attached editorial review of Mosher's work is a good capsule summary:

To understand modern China, writes Steven W. Mosher, one must understand that country's ancient sense of self. For 48 of the last 50 centuries, China has had the largest population and the most advanced economy in the world--and the Chinese know it. They have always viewed themselves as "culturally superior to other peoples," writes Mosher, an expert on China and author of A Mother's Ordeal. The Chinese also possess a self-identity dependent upon the concept of what Mosher calls "the Hegemon": "the non-Western notion that the premier goal of foreign policy should be to establish absolute dominance over one's region and, by slow extension, the world." All the feel-good talk coming out of Washington about "strategic partnerships" and "most-favored-nation status" are woefully naive, says Mosher. The Chinese, he writes, believe they are in "a worldwide contest with the U.S. to replace the current Pax Americana with a Pax Sinica." In other words, they want nothing less than to displace the United States as the world's sole superpower.

Mosher debunks what he considers to be the most pervasive and harmful myths about China: the notion that democracy is inevitably in its future, that market forces will advance freedom, that exposure to American culture will lead to change, and that technological developments such as the Internet will propel reform. In short, he firmly opposes all the rosy scenarios embraced by Congress and the Clinton administration. This is a provocative book--and one the Chinese government surely won't welcome, given its deep suspicion and frequent reference to the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Neither will many American elites, who come in for a severe beating: "It is a scandal that most former secretaries of state (beginning with Henry Kissinger), most former national security advisors (also beginning with Kissinger) and most of their senior deputies have gone into the China trade subsequent to their government service, often without even allowing the passage of a decent interval before beginning to cash in." Mosher wants Americans to make a more cold-eyed assessment of a country he believes is not a friend, but a threat. --John J. Miller

Book Description
Hegemon is as timely as today's headlines about Chinese efforts to influence U.S. elections and steal U.S. nuclear secrets. But it is also a masterful work of scholarship that reinforces Steven Mosher's reputation as one of our most thoughtful and provocative China watchers.

[ponder life]

And then everything you iterate afterwards disregards the unrepresentativeness of those you are backing.

I don't believe so. 300 million Americans living in a democracy at the mercy of so few. I don't buy it.

So what's your point?

It's quite clear, a group of citizens wanted to exercise their civil rights to contest their wages. But a government official used a legal right given to him to fire them. He didn't have to, but he did. That is still democracy in action.

[ponder life]

You mean like this? ;-)

I believe you know perfectly well that is not what I am talking about, but rather the motive for your goals.

[Paul Ross]

I believe you know perfectly well that is not what I am talking about, but rather the motive for your goals.

Sounds like psychological projection on your part. Typical Chi-Comm paranoia. Despots frequently do evidence that.

Must be a guilty conscience kind of thing.

[Cacique]

btt

[Paul Ross]

I don't believe so. 300 million Americans living in a democracy at the mercy of so few. I don't buy it.

Thomas Jefferson did. When he was talking about the Tree of Liberty...he was talking about this very thing.

So what's your point?
It's quite clear, a group of citizens wanted to exercise their civil rights to contest their wages. But a government official used a legal right given to him to fire them. He didn't have to, but he did. That is still democracy in action.

Yes. Ours is democratic...small d.... but when China arbitrarily bans all such...that infringement is withou color of any national secuiry needs. And is such a broad over-reach that it clearly is not democratic. Reagan intervened in strikes very seldom as a matter of fact. I really liked this historical retrospective on the PATCO strike:

In Honor of Ronald Reagan
Brian Trumbore
President/Editor, StocksandNews.com

In honor of Ronald Reagan's 90th birthday, I thought I'd do a story on his handling of the air traffic controllers union back in 1981, just months after he took office. While this isn't a standard Wall Street history piece, it certainly was a historic moment in the annals of labor unions and Reagan set the tone for a generation of management / labor issues, the vast majority of which were settled peaceably and for the good of the U.S. economy.

When Ronald Reagan took the oath of office in January 1981, he put forward in his inaugural address that government was not the solution to the nation's difficulties, it was the major cause. But while the nation was clamoring for a change in tone, in light of the depressing Carter years, it was still unclear just what kind of leader Reagan would be.

Then on March 30, just two months into his presidency, Reagan was shot by John Hinckley. The president's brave handling of the near fatal assassination attempt helped enhance his standing among the people. Following a series of congressional victories, his image would soar even further that summer.

The American aviation system employed some 17,000 air traffic controllers, organized under the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO). The members were upset that the wage increase they had been offered was below what they sought. They also argued that the stress of the job demanded a shorter workweek and earlier retirement options, on top of the extra cash. Some of their grievances were legitimate, such as the plea for a more modernized air traffic control system. And since earlier in the century, the American people had a sympathetic ear when it came to union matters (after all, at one time over 60% of workers in this country were part of organized labor), and it was assumed by PATCO that they would win over the people's support.

And when one thinks of the job of an air traffic controller, certainly the issue of stress is at the top of shared concerns. Just one mistake in judgment could cause the death of hundreds of passengers. In this respect, the work of a controller was unlike any other.

And so it was that on August 3, 1981, 13,000 of the 17,000 controllers went on strike. In the immediate aftermath of the strike announcement, there was bedlam in the entire U.S. transportation network. Management scrambled to fill the slots (controlling air traffic themselves, in most cases) and the airlines were able to operate at only 70% capacity. But if PATCO thought they were going to have their way with President Reagan because he would be too concerned about the financial impact a prolonged strike could have on the American economy, well, they were about to find out otherwise.

PATCO's members were in total defiance of federal law as there was a ban on strikes by government employees. In fact, each PATCO member had taken an oath not to strike when they were first hired. It was Reagan time.

Reagan's hero had always been Calvin Coolidge. And both believed in the virtues of hard work, frugality, and obligation to duty. Once, as governor of Massachusetts, Coolidge had turned the National Guard loose on a strike by Boston's policemen. [This one action had basically earned him the vice presidential slot on the 1920 ticket.] Coolidge and Reagan felt that once you took oaths, you were held to them. So Reagan acted quickly.

Ironically, PATCO had supported the president in the 1980 campaign. But, as Reagan biographer Dinesh D'Souza wrote, "(while) political calculation might dictate that a new president should work out an amicable settlement rather than alienate a powerful union that supported him and risk paralyzing the country's civil aviation system," Reagan didn't buy that argument.

In his meetings with advisers, Reagan quoted Coolidge, "There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time." With the backing of transportation secretary Drew Lewis, Reagan gave the controllers just 48 hours to return to work. 48 hours later most of them were fired. Reagan observed in his memoirs that his action "convinced people who might have thought otherwise that I meant what I said." Just as importantly, on a far bigger stage, Reagan's decision also helped show the Soviets that he was a decisive, no-nonsense leader.

PATCO's leader, Robert Poli, still naively thought that he could shut down the nation's airports and that the administration would have to give in to their demands. But instead, the government scrambled to hire more controllers (many from the military) and the disruption to air traffic proved to be brief. And amazingly, the American people stood with Reagan in large numbers. It wasn't too long before air traffic was back to normal, fears of disaster having been unwarranted.

But on the second thought, just imagine what would have happened had one accident occurred during this time. The blood would have been on many hands, including Ronald Reagan, himself.

As D'Souza notes (he was a Reagan aide at the time), the president adopted this stern course of action without consulting any polls. Yet, much to the surprise of many on his staff (who were often incredulous at some of his actions), the American people supported him because they were convinced that principle mattered, especially in the face of threats and intimidation. By this one incident, which set the tone for the whole presidency, "Reagan proved that the right thing to do can also be politically advantageous."

It took two years to fully train the new controllers, but we all survived, disruptions were few and PATCO was dead. The American labor movement had suffered its worst defeat in decades and the balance of power in labor disputes shifted towards management. Reagan's image as a courageous leader was burnished.

[ponder life]

Typical Chi-Comm paranoia. Despots frequently do evidence that.

...um...well...no... the book by Mosher and those who buy into his ideas are the ones who are paranoid.

[ponder life]

Thomas Jefferson did. When he was talking about the Tree of Liberty...he was talking about this very thing.

Lets keep the apples and oranges separate.

At that time, America was a colony ruled by a Monarch (England). So, yes, discourse with leaders of the few was more real then. But today, America's leaders and officials are elected, appointed and confirmed. If you don't like em, there's always election day. There's always protest, there's always media, newspaper, etc.

Paulson, is the result of the later.

It took two years to fully train the new controllers, but we all survived, disruptions were few and PATCO was dead. The American labor movement had suffered its worst defeat in decades and the balance of power in labor disputes shifted towards management.

So, my point about Reagan is this; he still had to oppose the same people who helped put him in office. And not every decision that a government official make is popular (even by those who put him/her there). And as the article pointed out, if anyone had died as a result of this decision, history would have seen Reagan differently in this matter.

So with Paulson, like Reagan firing the air traffic controllers, not every decision he makes will be popular with a certain percentage of the population.

[Paul Ross]

Lets keep the apples and oranges separate. At that time, America was a colony ruled by a Monarch (England). So, yes, discourse with leaders of the few was more real then.

No. First, you likely meant discontent, rather than discourse. And you're wrong about the timing of the piece, Jefferson penned the Tree of Liberty comment after we had successfully established our political independence from England. Jefferson was commenting on the inevitability of restive populations... here is his more of the quote to give you some context:

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

But today, America's leaders and officials are elected, appointed and confirmed. If you don't like em, there's always election day. There's always protest, there's always media, newspaper, etc.

As there were then. But still, as Jefferson alludes...there was need for government to remember who was sovereign. We the People. Which is the foundational premise of our system, our theory of limited government, and our experiment as a Republic to ensure individual liberty.

So with Paulson, like Reagan firing the air traffic controllers, not every decision he makes will be popular with a certain percentage of the population.

Reagan, unlike Paulson, was deeply concerned for the continuing welfare of the country as a whole...not the import lobby. Paulson can be classified as strictly an enemy of the country. Along with his fellow-travellers in the RAT party . Both colluding...preventing a real choice. Hence we will recapture the GOP. And oust the corrupt and their enablers.

Your government is busy abetting corruption, wherever it operates...from the Xlintons, to the Panamanians. Whether direct bribes, coercions, or somewhat indirect...they all are designed to keep the popular will from prevailing in lands that are being preyed upon by the Communist government. It was predictable that they would eventually find amongst a corrupt group of businessmen and politicians (of both parties) allies who profiteer at the expense of their countrymen. It is not just a political sickness, but a media illness. If the MSM was doing its job of muck-raking thoroughly and fairly across the spectrum...these rascals would have been turned out of office.

To give you an idea how unrepresentative your little troop of back-stabbers are...here are recent numbers on the collapse of popular support for your free ride masquerading as Free Trade:

Powered by

| |

Poll: Free trade loses backers

By Peronet Despeignes, USA TODAY

High-income Americans have lost much of their enthusiasm for free trade as they perceive their own jobs threatened by white-collar workers in China, India and other countries, according to data from a survey of views on trade. (Related item: Read the entire study)

The survey by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes is one of the most comprehensive U.S. polls on trade issues. It found that support for free trade fell in most income groups from 1999 to 2004, but dropped most rapidly among high-income respondents — the very group that registered the strongest support for free trade in the past. "Free trade" means the removal of barriers such as tariffs that restrict international trade. (Related story: Income confers no immunity as jobs migrate)

The PIPA poll shows that among Americans making more than $100,000 a year, support for actively promoting more free trade collapsed from 57% to less than half that, 28%. There were smaller drops, averaging less than 7 percentage points, in income brackets below $70,000, where support for free trade was already weaker.

The same poll found the share of Americans making more than $100,000 who want the push toward free trade slowed down or stopped altogether nearly doubled from 17% to 33%.

Rising anxiety about free trade could intensify an already fierce political battle this election year.

In the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., has gained some ground on front-runner Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., by hitting Kerry's support for free-trade agreements that critics say have cost American jobs. The Democratic nominee is expected to use the trade issue against President Bush, whose administration has generally been supportive of free trade.

The PIPA 2004 poll was released last month, but breakdowns by income level were performed at the request of USA TODAY. The results are based on responses from more than 1,800 U.S. residents with a margin of error of +/ —— 2.3-4 percentage points.

The findings suggest that anxieties about free trade long held by lower-income Americans and blue-collar workers — who have been losing jobs to cheaper labor markets abroad — have spread up the income ladder.

The findings come as the U.S. job market remains sluggish and accounting, computer programming, radiology and other high-end service jobs are being lost to workers abroad.

"This is huge," says Steven Kull, director of the Maryland polling unit. "What's most dramatic is what's happened to support among those making more than $70,000 a year. ... These include those who've most avidly supported trade and globalization, who've taken the lead in pushing the free-trade agenda forward."

[ponder life]

First, you likely meant discontent, rather than

Yes, discontent.

And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

By bringing this up, you are suggesting that an armed resistence to the federal government is an option.

The PIPA poll shows that among Americans making more than $100,000 a year, support for actively promoting more free trade collapsed from 57% to less than half that, 28%

Trade isn't the only issue that is no longer popular with the American people. The war in Iraq no longer enjoys majority support either. But there are still troops there. By your logic, if the American people no longer want troops in a certain country (Iraq) and government persistently continues to maintain troops there, then the people should be able to protest to a point of taking up arms against the federal government. To preserve liberty.

Then those who protest the war are the true patriots.

The findings suggest that anxieties about free trade long held by lower-income Americans and blue-collar workers — who have been losing jobs to cheaper labor markets abroad — have spread up the income ladder.

It must not be enough discontent, there is sufficient support to keep free trade expanding.

[Paul Ross]

By bringing this up, you are suggesting that an armed resistence to the federal government is an option.

It's our Revolutionary heritage. It's the bulwark against coups by either massive corruption or putsches.

I'm so glad you asked about this. You likely are unaware of our full history...which appears to be at variance with your public -school gloss-over. Our rebellion for independence was also over economic independence. An example was the Boston Tea Party. It was all about foreign interference. It was about independence therefrom.

Boston Teaparty
By Cassandra Jansen

*** Quote ***

In 1773, Britain's East India Company was sitting on large stocks of tea that it could not sell in England. It was on the verge of bankruptcy. In an effort to save it, the government passed the Tea Act of 1773, which gave the company the right to export its merchandise directly to the colonies without paying any of the regular taxes that were imposed on the colonial merchants, who had traditionally served as the middlemen in such transactions. With these privileges, the company could undersell American merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade. The act proved inflammatory for several reasons. First, it angered influential colonial merchants, who feared being replaced and bankrupted by a powerful monopoly. The East India Company's decision to grant franchises to certain American merchants for the sale of their tea created further resentments among those excluded from this lucrative trade. More important, however, the Tea Act revived American passions about the issue of taxation without representation. The law provided no new tax on tea. Lord North assumed that most colonists would welcome the new law because it would reduce the price of tea to consumers by removing the middlemen. But the colonists responded by boycotting tea. Unlike earlier protests, this boycott mobilized large segments of the population. It also helped link the colonies together in a common experience of mass popular protest. Particularly important to the movement were the activities of colonial women, who were one of the principal consumers of tea and now became the leaders of the effort to the boycott.

Various colonies made plans to prevent the East India Company from landing its cargoes in colonial ports. In ports other than Boston, agents of the company were "persuaded" to resign, and new shipments of tea were either returned to England or warehoused. In Boston, the agents refused to resign and, with the support of the royal governor, preparations were made to land incoming cargoes regardless of opposition. After failing to turn back the three ships in the harbor, local patriots led by Samuel Adams staged a spectacular drama. On the evening of December 16, 1773, three companies of fifty men each, masquerading as Mohawk Indians, passed through a tremendous crowd of spectators, went aboard the three ships, broke open the tea chests, and heaved them into the harbor.As the electrifying news of the Boston "tea party" spread, other seaports followed the example and staged similar acts of resistance of their own.'

When the Bostonians refused to pay for the property they had destroyed, George III and Lord North decided on a policy of coercion, to be applied only against Massachusetts, the socalled Coercive Acts. In these four acts of 1774, Parliament closed the port of Boston, drastically reduced the powers of selfgovernment in the colony, permitted royal officers to be tried in other colonies or in England when accused of crimes, and provided for the quartering of troops in the colonists' barns and empty houses. The acts sparked new resistance up and down the coast.

It must not be enough discontent, there is sufficient support to keep free trade expanding.

Perhaps Not.

The turnover in Congress was primarily due to Ohio for example. Remember the issue there?

We'll see, if the campaign-promisers heed the warnings of the electorate...and try and deliver.

[ponder life]

It's our Revolutionary heritage. It's the bulwark against coups by either massive corruption or putsches.

Interesting point of view. I guess that's why there are militias across the US. And they run military drills on occasions.

I'm so glad you asked about this. You likely are unaware of our full history...which appears to be at variance with your public -school gloss-over.

Well, I went to school here, so, I am familiar with the events leading up to the Revolutionary War.

But interesting article. England deliberately structured the taxes so as to cut out local tea merchants. Rather than debate over whether trade today is either similar or different to those circumstances that led to the Revolutionary War, lets assume that they are. Are you suggesting, an ARMED resistance to the 1000's or 10,000's of ships that enter US ports each year? Thereby sending a message to those who manage trade in this country (US)? And destructively disposing of it's contents? As an option?

Well, if that's the case, then, limiting the average citizen to small arms would be unconsitutional. The right to bear arms was intended to keep the government in check. And if it means the option to an armed resistance, then, small arms would not be sufficient to keep the federal government in check in today's modern warfare. The average citizen would have to be allowed to purchase stinger missles.