Monday, June 06, 2011

What kind of threat is China? by gimleteye

A fascinating book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Erik Larson focuses on American diplomacy in Germany, in the years before the outbreak of World War II. The story of the ambassador at the time, William Dodd, and his family is called "In the Garden of Beasts". The historical backdrop is as important as the insight how the Roosevelt White House fumbled its response to Hitler. Wall Street's preoccupation with the potential default of German's debt was primarily responsible for muddying the waters through which a tough US stand against Hitler never emerged until it was too late to avert war.

Arm-chair quarterbacking doesn't count for much. On the other hand, there is enough resonance with the current economic dependencies on China to cause concern. Today's front page of the Financial Times, "China says 'peaceful rise' policy holds firm", questions whether words match the belligerence of the Chinese military in the South China Sea. Hitler famously strung along the United States and western allies while consolidating his power within Germany and laying the groundwork for re-arming its military. 

It does not help that partisan posturing-- mainly by Republicans anxious to take the US Senate and contest for the White House -- is stringing along the national dialogue that should be taking place on China's role in the US economy. The debate about increasing our national debt limit could rock Wall Street, but Wall Street does not care who owns that debt. Our political leadership should, but on that score all you can hear are the leaves blowing in the trees.

3 comments:

Jay Leonard Schwartz said...

Yes, Wall Street does not care who owns the debt. Those are the cold hard facts. I'm not an economist, so to me it begs the question how one questions China's role in the US economy when the door is open via open markets and free enterprise ... which is sort of what the USA stands for and espouses abroad? Is this a matter of having sour grapes because we have our cake, but can't eat it, too? Or is it really that we don't have any cake, but nevertheless have still managed to bite off more than we can chew?

Anonymous said...

When you talk about China, you are really talking about two things here: the Chinese government and the Chinese people. Without a major revolution that disempowers the government, this country is a huge threat to us. The face of China, the college students and business people, is quite different from the face of the People's Party. Every time we turn around, they are hacking our data bases, stealing our intellectual property and throwing dissidents into jails, never to be seen again. As we fight in Afghanistan, they are there signing leases. They own too much of our debt and they are screwing with their currency. On the surface, yes - they will go into Korea and talk with that crazy man. In reality, they want to dominate us and I don't think they even try to hide that. If this is is the experiment (where goods trade borders, soldiers do not), I hope like hell it works. It is dangerous to confuse the Chinese people with this brutal regime - and we are empowering them beyond all belief. It scares the hell out of me and this is not necessarily about protectionism, mind you.

Anonymous said...

http://www.linktv.org/programs/moving-the-mountain?hm

Tienamen Square. The guy who wrote this is now 14th on the list of richest people. He escaped and ended up in Great Britain and recently took Bill Gates back to China. This film has been around for awhile, but worth watching.

What I am suggesting is that many things about China have changed, but the most important and concerning things have not.