Comments by "HomerOJSimpson" (@Homer-OJ-Simpson) on "The EU's New Plan to Handle China" video.

@knockhello2604 Yeah, I just looked it up. Wages in Morocco are comparable to China but morocco doesn't have natural resources, electricity and water are a problem, etc.
4
I think there is a balance of both that must be done. Trade but don't trade too much where you are dependent on them. Unless it's a liberal democracy.
2
@LizardSpork "There's a tendency for capitalists to think that trade will prevent war.' It works ONLY if the other nation you're trying to change relies heavily on that trade. But if that other country is very natural resource rich, they can sell their resources to anyone. Or if they are very big market like China or India, they know you will need their trade. But Eastern Europe is a great example of it working.
1
@LizardSpork > I never said "stop trading", I said "trade does not prevent war". Maybe the fact you worded your original comment in a way that is more of a strawman might be the problem. Those 'capitalist' don't say it will ALWAYS prevent war. What it does is highly reduce war. > it's not just trade that brought peace to Europe, Europe had plenty of trade just prior to WW1, Actually, trade between nations were very minimal before WW2 relative to trade afterwards. Trade actually helps foster closer relations as well, which you didn't mention. Before Ch1na went a bit crazy starting 2020, a lot of the world had at least somewhat positive opinion of China. It was only starting in 2020 for the reasons mentioned in this video that they started seeing their favorability numbers drop. " liberal democracies don't war against each other." is a given and cannot be changed from the outside, but trade is something that one country can do with another that greatly reduces trade.
1
@oskars1419 Yeah, not like China is tampering in elections in Europe nor have secret police stations in Europe, right?
1
@oskars1419 Yeah, not like China is tampering in elections in Europe nor have secret police stations in Europe, right?
1
@LizardSpork Germany's largest trade partners may have been those countries -- but international trade was a much smaller part of their economy than post WW2. The world was not that globalized. If it was already as high as after WW2, then the powers wouldn't have created a globalized trade system to promote more trade if it already was exceptionally high.
1
@LizardSpork "What does lack of globalisation have to do" Literally means that international trade was no where near as big as it would later become. You are aware of that, right? This isn't rocket science -- it's well established that trade has increased a lot over the years and that before economies were much more domestic oriented. > not something that guarantees peace. and like I said, you keep creating this strawman. It INCREASES the chances of peace. Or, it REDUCES the chances of war.
1
@LizardSpork lots of things increas chances of peace and trade is one that increases peace the most that can be done from the outside rather. Liberal democracy comes from within — but trade certainly helped Eastern Europe became mostly liberal democracy. Same with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. I didn’t say you said trade doesn’t increase peace. I said you created a strawman by saying “capitalist say trade prevents war”.
1
@LizardSpork Those are some extreme positions from a few. You're saying that a few people saying that means that you can apply to all capitalist? And people often use hyperbolic language to emphasize a point.
1
@LizardSpork And just to illustrate my point of you taking things out of context, here is more on Thomas Friedeman that should end this conversation: - Thomas Friedman also warns that the Dell theory should not be interpreted as a guarantee that nations that are deeply involved in global supply chains will not go to war with each other.* It means, rather, that the governments of those nations and their citizens will have very heavy economic costs to consider as they contemplate the possibility of war. Such costs include long-term loss of the country's profitable participation in the global supply chain.
1
@LizardSpork Yeah, except you did a blanket statement on a whole group when it was a small subset of them. So you made 1% apply to 100% of capitalist..and that 1% didn't even say it 100% eliminates chance of war.
1
@himanshusingh5214 almost every expert agrees a major reason China doesn’t fully support Russia (by providing weapons) and doesn’t invade Taiwan is the impact it will have to Chinas economy. So trade doesn’t 100% guarantee peace but it does greatly reduce chances of war.
1
@williamdavis9562 Why? 90%of Europe is a democracy.
1