China's Rise Is Inevitable -- So Deal With It

Forbes Magazine ^ | 6-28-02 | Mark Lewis

[AIG]

NEW YORK - A decade ago it was Japan that touched off nationalistic fears among Americans who worry about being out-competed by Asian industrialists. Now it is China's turn to generate the scare stories. The reflex cannot be helped, but nor should it be indulged in any policy sense. China's rise is inevitable and should not be viewed as a threat.

Consider this front-page story in today's New York Times: "China Emerges as Rival to U.S. in Asian Trade." That sort of headline will become commonplace in the next few years as China increases its dominance of East Asia's economy. Yet at the same time, U.S. exporters will benefit from the growth of China's internal market, and U.S. consumers will benefit by buying China's low-priced and increasingly high-quality exports.

China's rise does call for an adaptive response from Washington, which must find a graceful way to accommodate itself to the new regional superpower. But in terms of trade, the key policy already is in place--China was last year ushered into the World Trade Organization, under whose auspices this formerly closed society will be fully integrated into the global economy.

Of course, there's still the little matter of Taiwan, which the U.S. is pledged (in vague terms) to defend. The best-case scenario: China's embrace of capitalism forces it to evolve into a full-fledged democracy, as people who gain economic control over their lives insist on political control as well. If that happens, Taiwan will end up clamoring to merge with the mainland in order to avoid the fate of China's other small neighbors, which will find themselves overshadowed by the revitalized Middle Kingdom.

Let's minimize the hand-wringing over this situation. Would anybody seriously prefer that China had remained shackled to the Maoist precepts that kept its economy small and weak? In any case, that's not an option. China's emergence is a fact to be recognized rather than fretted over. And it is also an opportunity, because America with its flexible economic system is well positioned to adapt to new realities and benefit from them.

The supposed threat from Japan generated a lot of concern in the early '90s, yet nowadays the scare headlines are all about Japan's economic decline, which is seen as bad for the United States. If China's economy runs into serious trouble, that too will be bad news for America.

But China, even if it stumbles along the way, is a much better bet than Japan to eventually achieve regional dominance, both politically and economically. This will make some Americans nervous. They may as well start getting used to the idea now--and make plans to take advantage of it.

[AIG]

How can you ignore elections when elections are the heart of the system of government created by the Founders based on moral principles? You can't just brush aside elections or the factors that are often important in elections -- the economy, etc. -- when elections were the direct result of the moral principles that guided the Founders in constructing America's system of government. Elections often turn on whether America's economy is doing well or not. That's a simple fact. Bush Sr. didn't get re-elected because he neglected the economy. Bush Jr. might meet a similar fate if the stock market doesn't recover. When a US President can lose an election because of economics, it tells you how important economics are to politics. Economics is often the determining factor behind elections, as Bush Sr. found out and as Bush Jr. may as yet find out. Republicans today are already worried they'll lose the House because they themselves vulnerable on the stock market and corporate scandals issues. It's naive to say economics doesn't have influence in politics. It's probably the most important overall factor.

[Jeff Head]

I didn't brush aside the election. They are important and people are elected or not elected for a number of reasons ... foreign policy, economy and the stand on moral issues, etc. I simply stated a fact. They are immaterial to the truths and morals upon which the principles of morality are based ... irrespective of who is President. Those rpinciples would remain true if not one single American practised them. Thankfully, scores of millions still do.

You have much to learn regarding what really makes America strong IMHO. Hope you can pass it on to your friends in Beijing for they will miscaculate terribly if they proceed with such a distorted view.

But we have discussed this ad infinitum.

Refer to my post number 184 oin this thread for any further discussion on this issue.

Again, adieu.

[AIG]

Your moral principles are one thing, but unless they get expressed in reality through winning an election, they don't have any real impact in a democratic society. Remember, the Founders set up a democratic system so that yours and others' moral or other views could be expressed and maybe realized. And don't u understand that elections are the direct result of the moral principles of which you speak that guided the Founders in constructing America's system of government? So there's a direct link between the moral principles you honor and elections. And insofar as elections go, Bush Sr. already lost one presidency because he neglected the economy and Bush Jr. may lose another presidency for the same reason. You just have to understand that economics is often the central issue in elections and politics, regardless of your moral principles that only you may have, given the greater importance Americans seem to place on economics.

[AIG]

In other words, you can live in a vacuum all you want, but some people prefer to call a spade a spade.

[AIG]

Bush Jr.'s popularity is declining as we speak because he is not doing enough to save the economy. Be aloof about this fact if you want if you don't mind President Gore or Lieberman in 2004.

[dirtboy]

They just bought DEISEL submarines.

Harpoon class, I believe. Extremely quiet. China is not looking to use these submarines to project power across the Pacific, but instead to cause problems for the United States if it sends a carrier group into the Straits of Taiwan during a conflict.

[It'salmosttolate]

Jeff, you never took me up on my proposal to buy your book IF you could show me text from your book showing that Prescot Bush is the Chairman of the Board of the US-China Chamber of Commerce (usccc.org)?

Is it possible it is not in your book?

[Aedammair]

You have to give China's leaders their due (historical and present), because it seems to me that their permutation of Marxism, into mercantile Marxism, is what allowed their brand of Communism to economically flourish, while still retaining extremely muscular political control.

I don't think they ever bought into the stupidity of Marxist economics like the Russians did. The caliber of China's peasantry was much higher than that of Russia's, both in intellect and work ethic, and I think that is one of the reasons they've made large scale Communism (even their singular, and somewhat doctrine negating mercantile brand) work.

Tito's Yugoslavia was much the same. He basically told Stalin that if he wanted to be assured of Yugoslavia's "cooperation" in his hegemonic pursuits, he'd better mind his own economic affairs. And Stalin had no choice but to comply.

[chilepepper]

Have you OBJECTIVELY analysed the quality of Chinese products lately?

I live down in Chile and was able to check out a Seagull camera. Costs about a third as much as a Pentax or Canon, and is astonishingly well put together. The optics are SUPERB, if not quite as good as Canon PRESENT DAY optics.

At least as good as Canon or Pentax best ten years ago, which in practical terms is good enough for most people.

China manufactures just about everything now (no doubt they have learned from plants set up by Americans, Japanese, Europpeans, etc) but

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE TECHNICAL PROWESS OF THE CHINESE, NOR OVERESTIMATE THEIR INTENTIONS.

Chinese are just folks trying to get along. I would be very surprised if anything violent ever came of Taiwan...

It is sound and fury signifying nothing - China brings it up now and again for their own internal politics and to gain prestige on the world stage by "standing up" to the U.S...

[AIG]

Authoritarian rule combined with capitalism is not something the Chinese invented. Authoritarianism combined with capitalism has a far longer history of working together than modern democracy combined with capitalism. Modern democracy is just a little over 200 years old. Most of human history has been a case of authoritarian rule combined with capitalism. Up until around 200 years ago, most European countries had this combination. It worked very well, especially during the "enlightened despot" era of the 1700's, when authoritarian rulers set the stage for modern democracy later by implementing rule of law, private property rights, and other universal, country-wide policies which helped develop majority middle-class populations which were the foundations for future European modern democracies. Similarly, E. Asian "tigers" over the past 50 years had authoritarian rulers who implemented capitalist policies which helped bring about majortiy middle-class populations which were the foundations of their future democracies. China is merely following this proven path today. Unfortunately, most of today's Third World democracies from Latin America to India are dysfunctional jokes which never had pro-capitalist authoritarian leaders who could first develop majority middle-class populations before adopting full-scale democracy. Premature adoption of democracy in Third World countries often leads to legislative gridlock which needlessly delays the capitalist reforms their peoples desperately need. On the other hand, authoritarian rulers can implement capitalist reforms without the needless delay of the democratic legislative process.

[AIG]

The reason today's Third World democracies are such failures is that they have majority-poor populations who inevitably elect socialistic politicians into office who, of course, oppose capitalist reforms. Combined with the inherent democratic legislative gridlock of Third World democracies, this is a formula for stagnation and the needless wallowing of generation after generation of people in poverty in these democratic countries (India, Indonesia, S. Africa, Latin America, etc).

[AIG]

Chile is about the only Latin American country that didn't follow the Third World democratic path but followed the pro-capitalist, authoritarian (under Pinochet) path that proved so successful in 18th century Europe and Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. in the latter half of the 20th century.

[bok]

The communist chinese government and not the general population is who i worry about. The United States started farming out alot of their industry the entertainment industry to the factories. Deindustrializing the united states for the sake of a democratic china is a very bad idea, when that government has threatened to vaporize two of your biggest cities.

[chilepepper]

On that I agree... the most dangerous parts of the Chinese mix are the gerontocracy and the gender imbalance... but I still believe that only an "insane" ruling claque would let things spiral out of control. Unfortunately, history has too many examples of exactly that.

I just hope enough Chinese entrepreneurs become millionaires to bribe the Communist party heirachy enough to keep things on an even keel. The final result of a real war would be to make China break up into a bunch of independent states and send the Chinese back to the pre-dynasty days...

[Aedammair]

Thanks for the excellent historical perspective and analysis.

[Jeff Head]

Don't remember the offer ... but that fact is not in the series ... neither is President Bush. He drops out in 2004 during the primaries before the start of the book and another is elected ... much to the consternation of a group I call the Council on International Relations in my series.

If you want to know who that is, and how he goes about setting things aright ... you'll have to get a copy. But I cannot take you up on your offer.

[Jeff Head]

There is a huge difference between a vacuum and an absence of agreement or acceptance of your philosophical points. Too bad you have to refer to it as such. Displays a further misconception IMHO.

Refer to post 184.

[AIG]

Elections may be "immaterial," as you said, to absolute moral principles, but in a democratic society, elections are the means by which yours and others' moral, economic, political, social, etc. views get expressed. That's all I said. Sure, moral principles may have some metaphysical reality in and of themselves, but politics is a practical art so the Founders chose elections as the means for expressing moral and other views in reality. Politics is politics, and religion is religion. You should not confuse religion with politics. And insofar as most elections are concerned, they are decided upon economic issues more than upon moral issues. As I said before, Bush Jr. seems to have higher, firmer moral positions than his dad, but do you really think that that's going to save him if the stock market stays depressed and people's retirement funds are lost forever? Moral absolutists like yourself often have trouble reconciling metaphysical moral principles with practical, strategic political thinking. This is why Congress has yet to overtun Roe v. Wade, among other things. But it's not so damaging if you and other moral absolutists start to take real-life political considerations into account. America today works on the basis of elections. Elections are the ultimate means for how decisions are made in a democratic society. The Founders purposefully designed it that way, so you can't ignore elections. You can entertain all the moral ideas you want, but at the end of the day, you have to pay attention to elections. And in elections, the will of the people more often turns on economic issues than moral principles. Being a saint will not help prevent Bush from getting booted from office in 2004 if retirees don't recover their retirement money soon. Remember the phrase, "it's the economy, stupid!" America exists so that its people can be happy, particularly economically, and if America's political leaders don't deliver the economic goods, America's people tends to boot them out of office!

[AIG]

America exists so that its people can be happy, particularly economically, and if America's political leaders don't deliver the economic goods, America's people tends to boot them out of office!

[Jeff Head]

You seem to have a difficult time with reading comrpehension.

I do not ignore elections, I understand there import and the part they play in this republic. What I simnply said was that, either way, they have no bearing on moral principle. The elections certainly can make a difference with the conditions we live in.

Your pronouncements sound more akin to moral relativism than most anything else in your attempt to render them (the moral principles) of less consequence. If they could be rendered relative ... they ould have little or no meaning, and therefore are rendered to little conseqeunce. This is a classic Marxist tactic.

That's fine, you re free to lean that way (with respect to this issue). But religion, morality and the welfare of this nation ... and its politics are and were designed to be related to one another ... just not controlled. It is clear that by failing to recognize this, or even acknowledge it as part of the founders intent that you misunderstand that intent and the very basis and fabric for what they created. Go back and read their quotes that I have given to you. Start in post 184.

Morality is absolute otherwise it has no meaning and (as you would like to imagine) it has little consequence in the overall picture. There are folks that would like that to be true ... but it is a false notion. It is only our understanding and our application of moral principle that is not absolute. The further away we are from applying it ... the more trouble we as individuals and as a society run into. That's the way America was designed to operate. It was established for a "moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other". It would be well for us to remember it as a people and apply it as a free will choice. It is the only way it can work.

By the way ... America does not exist to make us happy. It exists to make us free. We will be happy as a people and a nation to the degree that we choose to apply that freedom by following the Author of true happiness and His moral code. Any coursery reading of the founders and their intent make this plain. Religion and politics were not meant to be divorced from one another ... only that the political institution would not create a "state church". Most oft, people who push for a total difestiture are those who have little practical commitment to their religious feeling. By and large, our founders were certainly not numbered among such.

This will be my last post to you on this issue. We have been over the same ground ad infinidum. I am content to now let my words stand as they are.