Posted on 02/06/2004 8:39:32 PM PST by luckydevi
This canard has been promoted by free traders ad nauseaum as a reason to open up our markets.
There is no historical basis in fact for that statement. When Kissinger landed in China in 1973 one of the arguments for better relations with China was that if we opened up the country to trade our ides and trade would eventually result in democratic change and China would join the rest of the world as a democracy. Of course the Communist regime (USSR) that fell was the one with whom we had limited trade. The other one gave us Tienanmen Square and a military industrial complex that believes in the inevitability of war with the US and that we are it's mortal enemy.
If we go back to the 1930's trading with Germany as nations began to slowly get out of the depression merely enriched and enhanced the industrial capacity of Germany to wage war.
Fast forward to the present, in the middle east the country with one of the greatest per capita incomes and trade with the west is Saudi Arabia. Again we see how an influx of money and trade really brought that country out of the dark ages. It's wonderful people love us so much that 15 of them even volunteered to fly planes into New York.
Historically, trade does not mean peace, it is merely a precursor to war, invasion and conquest when the more militarily powerful nation decides to take over it's markets by force rather than trade.
Of course the exception to the rule in the 20th century has been trade among democracies. However, none of the threats we face is from old and stable democracies. Certainly not China anyway and we could argue whether any of these other third world cesspools where we are exporting jobs to fit a definition of "democracy" in a modern sense.
Look if you want to be truthful just tell the truth: Western workers will have to have a lowering of their standard of living so that Asians will have their standard of living improved. I mean, the bright side is that our standard of living may not fall as much as their's will rise.
I'm also tired of the same old thoughtless, meaningless rhetoric that libertarians spew out.
Ok, the truth. We have had one heck of a run caused by technological advances that have raised our productivity. Foreigners saw it and invested heavily in our securities markets and we’ve all benefited. True? Now comes the “catch-up effect” phenomena, as developing foreign countries will use that same technology – now not so new any longer but new for them – and increase their productivity and growth with it. As America shifts its resources through economic activity, hopefully with private and not governmental activity, we will go through a structural change that will pinch some of the members of our society. This will bring intermediate-term pains as the demographics of our society will determine the what that new economy structure will look like.
There is no historical basis in fact for that statement. When Kissinger landed in China in 1973 one of the arguments for better relations with China was that if we opened up the country to trade our ides and trade would eventually result in democratic change and China would join the rest of the world as a democracy. Of course the Communist regime (USSR) that fell was the one with whom we had limited trade. The other one gave us Tienanmen Square and a military industrial complex that believes in the inevitability of war with the US and that we are it's mortal enemy.
If we go back to the 1930's trading with Germany as nations began to slowly get out of the depression merely enriched and enhanced the industrial capacity of Germany to wage war.
Fast forward to the present, in the middle east the country with one of the greatest per capita incomes and trade with the west is Saudi Arabia. Again we see how an influx of money and trade really brought that country out of the dark ages. It's wonderful people love us so much that 15 of them even volunteered to fly planes into New York.
Historically, trade does not mean peace, it is merely a precursor to war, invasion and conquest when the more militarily powerful nation decides to take over it's markets by force rather than trade.
Of course the exception to the rule in the 20th century has been trade among democracies. However, none of the threats we face is from old and stable democracies. Certainly not China anyway and we could argue whether any of these other third world cesspools where we are exporting jobs to fit a definition of "democracy" in a modern sense.
Germany deeply resented having to pay reparations after WWI. However they paid that debt - probably in gold – and it left their economy in shambles. The resentment continued to build, fueled by the hyperinflation that occurred from the devaluation of their currency, the ensuing internal banking crises, and the loss of her sovereignty. Then up steps the National Socialistic Party with its “inspirational” message of taking their country back and putting people back to work and so on. Needless to say the people were “ripe” to be led down the treacherous path.
China on the other hand began to hate western style capitalism around about the same time that the western industrialized countries started to carve up their eastern ports, taking away their sovereignty, and collecting their resources while exporting them and keeping all the profits. Now, thanks to trade, China is moving toward a more open, market-based economy. Private property rights are the next logical step. In the mean time there is still deep distrust stemming from the last 100 years of our dealing with each other. Are they becoming more of a threat? The answer is, simultaneously, yes and no. Time and attitude will tell. They have – and still do - utilize unfair trading practices. I wonder how long they’ll leave their currency pegged to ours while the dollar is in free fall. I think the free fall is deliberate myself.
Saudi Arabia, well, you’ve got me on that one. But I think that Saudi Arabia’s over represented “contributions” to the terrorist assaults on America (not just New York) were more due to the ease of access to our country.
Historically, conditions of economic inequity and the ensuing emotions that those condition spawn have been the precursors to conflict, not trade.
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.