Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "Chinese Ports Full of Empty Containers; Foreign Investors Accelerating Withdrawal" video.
-
4
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chillwill5080
”I didn’t say we should isolate them, I just said we shouldn’t do business with them.”
Which amounts to the same thing. In any case, you’re not in a position to tell US companies where they can and can’t manufacture their goods. You’re also in no position to tell US consumers where they can and can’t buy their goods.
”So tell me again, who here is more worried about China aggression? Do you think appeasing them and propping up their economy has worked out well for anyone besides them?”
Wow. Where to start with this. So many assumptions.
Nobody here is more worried about Chinese aggression than me because even a cursory examination of the facts shows that China is well capable of making good on her threats. Which threats? Basically, all of them.
Let’s start with appeasement. I knew that word would be dragged up early in the game but I didn’t think it would be quite so soon. If you’re ever going to repeat the lessons of history, it’s right here. I recently read a book on the 1938 Munich Crisis and my conclusion is that it is the worst understood, most politically exploited piece of political history of all time. Everyone thinks they know what happened. Nobody does.
It’s become a political swear word. Want to really denigrate your opponent, accuse them of having no balls? Call them an appeaser.
But every time a country, particularly the United States, wants to flex its muscles, people like you drag up appeasement as a reason why the world should start brandishing swords in a war that potentially nobody can win. The word has come to mean cowardice. But the difference is that we’re not talking about 1938 here.
We’re talking more like 1914 but with nuclear weapons. About ten years ago, an Australian historian called Christopher Clark wrote a book called ‘The Sleepwalkers’, which challenged a lot of the widely held beliefs about the start of WWI. For most people this was virtually meaningless because the average Joe believes it started because a Serbian terrorist shot and killed an Austrian crown prince and his wife in Sarajevo.
Clark’s thesis was that a series of miscalculations, false assumptions and sword brandishing machismo had as much to do with the outbreak of the First World War as the litany of treaties that have so long been blamed. In short, the continuous repetition of widely accepted rhetoric and chest beating made war inevitable. The world just casually walked into the war with its collective eyes wide shut and no thought for the consequences. It would all be over by Christmas anyway. Sleepwalking, in fact.
And this is exactly what you’re doing: quoting maxims that no longer apply about appeasement and bringing China to heel. Except that China won’t come to heel and literally all the modelling shows that a virtually-inevitable confrontation between China and the rest of the world would go China’s way and not ours.
And that’s before we start talking about nuclear weapons.
Since the end of the Cold War, we in the West have become drunk on self-indulgence and over-confidence to the point that many people look at a potential war with China and dismiss it as, ‘Yeah, well, we knocked off Iraq in 1991 and barely got our hair mussed. China will be no problem.’ Anyone who hasn’t considered this is kidding themselves.
The problem is no longer one of containment because China can make good on her threats.
So, a smart person would be trying to think of another way. And if you think there isn’t another way it’s because you haven’t thought of it yet.
The United States is not propping up the Chinese economy either. More accurate the other way around. China has bought up so much US currency that it practically owns the US economy. This was something we, in the post Cold War west, with our insatiable appetite for consumer goods, have brought upon ourselves. And we have to fix it before it’s too late.
This is a high stakes game. It’s as high as it gets. Get it wrong and the consequences will be horrific. Glib comments about appeasement have no place here, especially when they have a history of not working. Just because one policy didn’t work, that doesn’t mean the opposite policy will.
1
-
@chillwill5080
"Yeah I literally wrote how I think the USA should resolve the problems, never mentioned starting a war with China, but by all means we must be ready to end one by any means necessary."
That's routine talk. This is not a routine situation.
"China has been offered many carrots to change direction with regard to competing fairly with others and being a good neighbor, they have chosen the stick instead."
Except that China is only doing what America did. She just isn't going to do it on American terms anymore. That's the problem you're facing.
"I don't believe that we should just ignore China's increasing belligerence and long record of aggression against its neighbors and us anymore."
Well, that's become an impossibility anyway. But beyond Tibet and the odd border stows with India, China's record is pretty unspectacular and they have more of a history of being invaded than invading.
"We don't need China, we can buy our junk from their neighbors where it's actually made."
A lot of what China produces today is far from junk. That's the problem: if a consumer can buy something that's 95% as good for 25% of the price then you can guess what they're going to do with their money. And that's been China's aim all along. The stereotype that China only makes junk is very 40 years ago.
"Unfortunately it's our own weak and feckless government that has allowed China to grow into a bully, but even they can't hide the truth anymore."
This is quite wrong. Blaming the government for people's own retail choices - which is what this comes down to - is counter-capitalism. At some point we all have to take responsibility for this. When you buy something like an iPhone, it might be designed in America but it's made in China. Buy a carbon fibre bike, even an American branded one, the chances are, it comes out of a factory in Guangzhou. You might not even know it but you're still buying Chinese made, even if it was done under American supervision.
Those are your choices.
I avoid buying Chinese made goods by choice but I'm also realistic enough to know that in some areas, it's unavoidable. American companies have outsourced so much that it's no longer a matter of 'if' but 'how much'.
"Like the mighty Soviet Union, feared for decades, like the Nazis who were going to take over the world; piss off enough people and dreams of domination turn to dust. When China loses their main trading partners and has no money, I doubt very many nations will be so friendly toward them."
And herein lies the biggest problem with your comments. You can't afford to be that dismissive. America expects that everything will just continue as normal and that American good will triumph over Chinese evil, like a Hollywood script. The Cold War never turned into a hot war but we came close. The reason it didn't happen is because there were only one or two occasions when the US-NATO coalition and Warsaw Pact forces stared each other down. In those cases there wasn't enough incentive to have a proper war. The China-Taiwan situation is quite different. Unlike Cuba, China has a far greater determination to prevail than the Soviet Union did. When Khrushchev looked at Cuba, he was prepared to defend it but not to go to nuclear war over it. And this was a man who believed in 'all or nothing'. Xi Jinping is not Khrushchev. He's not as intelligent for a start and he doesn't care if things get rough as long as he gets Taiwan. And he's made it the cornerstone of his rule.
If the world hasn't noticed that, then it's probably too late already.
"China is a nation of parasites, incapable of original thought, it is indeed time for them to get a taste of reality, they have been drunk on a fantasy that they somehow raised themselves to their status when in reality it is other nations that handed them everything they have."
Racism is not a valid argument here. Hate them all you like but it's clouding your judgement severely. I repeat what I said earlier: ALL the modelling shows that the United States cannot defeat China in a war over Taiwan. Expect at least WWII level casualties.
"Anyone who read history books knows the problems that led to them, and that in the end it was deluded governments that started them."
Really? Which 'history books' have you read recently? I just pointed out two - 'The Sleepwalkers' and 'The Greatest Treason' - which run counter to this simplistic version of events. "Deluded governments'? Really? Do you really think that's how the world turns? There are several steps before a war happens. We can prevent it now or we can wear the consequences. But if it starts, there is only one step to annihilation. Think about it.
"Again, China would do well to learn something for themselves instead of trying to copy it, before it gets taught to them like so many others have learned before; the hard way."
And again, the modelling shows that America would not win a war with China over Taiwan. Waving simplistic versions of history as examples of what you think (hope) will happen in the future won't change that fact.
We have to think of another way out of this before someone in government who thinks like you lets events spiral out of control and we sleepwalk into a major war. Wake up.
1
-
@chillwill5080 You said this earlier and I didn’t address it properly:
”If the USA and it’s allies cut off trade with China they would have no choice except to conform to standards.”
First of all, China has made it abundantly clear that they are not going to conform, least of all to western - and particularly American - ’standards’. That is part of the basis of Xi’s nationalism. Think I’m kidding? ‘Foreign Affairs’, a top notch American magazine, ran an extensive article recently on what his aims were and they are pretty clear. To establish Chinese pre-eminence, not just in the Asia-Pacific region but globally and to ‘incorporate’ Taiwan. And he wants all this in a time frame, generally thought to be about ten years.
Secondly, cutting off trade with China completely is impossible. For a start, even parts of your top military products have Chinese components in them. The F-35 fighter is but one example. Secondly, trade with China is a two way street. You benefit from things you sell in China, as much as you benefit from what you buy. This isn’t the 1940s anymore.
Finally, the United States is not in a position to force China into anything, much less come to heel, so such an assumption - that they would have no choice - is simply wrong. China still has extensive trade with big countries like India and Russia that will not replace what they lose but will limit the damage. So your boycott plan is not likely to succeed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1