6 ms·

Which country doesn't want to corner supply markets? How is this different from if any other country would have done it?

by ksk 9y ago

RobertRoberts 9y ago
The difference is that other countries don't combine their businesses with their government, thus creating an unholy alliance where the government can manipulate the value of their currency and empower their businesses to out compete on the global markets unfairly.
- ksk 9y ago
  >The difference is that other countries don't combine their businesses with their government, The US government has export embargoes, and has blocked the foreign purchase of US tech firms, citing "national security". The NSA has used US tech firms to spy on foreign citizens/governments. >where the government can manipulate the value of their currency and empower their businesses to out compete on the global markets unfairly. Every government tries to make exports cheaper. How many billions of dollars has the US treasury printed during quantitative easing? Also, for e.g., the US defense only accepts payment in USD for weapons purchases or defense services (to korea, japan, etc) - in part - helping keep the demand for the USD high. Calling it currency manipulation doesn't make it evil when China does it. Its just a game that all countries play and each tries to brush their own motivations under carpets with different words written on top. To me, while it's not a wash, with every country being "equally bad", its a little hypocritical to see countries adopt a "do as i say, not as I did" policy.
  - mrkstu 9y ago
    What I think is happening is people are identifying machiavellian actions. Chinese actions aren't 'bad' per se- they are self-interested though- and often in a zero-sum context. The US, despite many deplorable actions by its government over the years, consistently also supported good government initiatives, development initiatives, and generally bi-lateral open markets. This has allowed well run countries access to a large export base with minimal barriers- hence the rise of countries like S. Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan and Germany post WWII, all of which could have been foreclosed by the hyperpower of the US if it so wished. China is completely strategic in leveraging its money and industrial base into more military and political power. It has no problem in leveraging corrupt governments like Venezuela to secure more strategic influence, much like the US did during the Cold War, which at least had the goal and virtue of halting the spread of totalitarian Communism. If a nation is going to act completely self-interested, rather than contribute to the greater good and trust that growing the market ensures more for everyone, it then behooves other countries to act in defense of their self interest in return and potentially act in a coordinated manner to constrain that power. The US, despite its errors, delivers value to its partners. S. Korea, Japan, Germany have all directly benefitted from sheltering in the embrace of American military might. And as the Philippines has shown, the US is more than willing to withdraw from any country (other than Cuba, for historic reasons) that wants it gone.
    - ksk 9y ago
      Thanks for the comment. I agree with some of what you said. My objection is towards the recent (mostly in the west) hyper nationalistic attitude towards China, as-if everything they do is necessarily evil. Personally, I have no dog in this fight as being neither American nor Chinese (not that it should matter anyway :) ). I'd like to counter some of your points though. I don't think the US could have checked the rise of all of those countries. The US (Allies) forced their way economically into Japan/Germany/Korea/etc after the war, in an act of pure self-interest - Reparations, forced exports, etc. They continued to benefit from the rise of those countries anyway. China is strategic as you say, but they've always been isolated from the West. They've tried creating alliances (BRIC), which have been moderately successful. Now they're also trading with many heretofore neglected countries in Africa to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Western media calls it "the new colonialism". I happen to think that this is the west realizing that there is a chance, however slight, that they could be excluded from a large portion of the future growth markets. Maybe an emergence of the Silk Road? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road
    - fspeech 9y ago
      Are you saying China making cell phones and other goods cheaply available didn't benefit most of the people around the world? I don't get your logic.
- pishpash 9y ago
  What are you talking about? Economic sanction is one of the foremost statecraft tools in the US arsenal.
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    Sanctions on a country with privately run businesses is not the same as sanctions on a country with government owned businesses.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  "The difference is that other countries don't combine their businesses with their government." This is just flat out and absolutely wrong, in fact, effeect, and strategy. Just one title, author happens to be Chinese, though source is the US, 1952. Economic Warfare. https://www.worldcat.org/title/economic-warfare/oclc/1024506817&referer=brief_results https://www.worldcat.org/title/economic-warfare/oclc/1024506... The author wrote numerous works for U.S. policy organisations from the 1950s-90s. See also, GOEs, such as Sallie Mae and Fanny Mae.
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    Are you saying that the Chinese government doesn't own or have controlling stakes in it's own businesses?
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      That was not the element of disagreement.
      - RobertRoberts 9y ago
        Then if China owns it's businesses, then my point stands. China uses their laws to allow their businesses to have advantages that other countries (where the businesses are privately owned) can never have.

Which country doesn't want to corner supply markets? How is this different from if any other country would have done it?

by ksk 9y ago

Which country doesn't want to corner supply markets? How is this different from if any other country would have done it?

RobertRoberts 9y ago

The difference is that other countries don't combine their businesses with their government, thus creating an unholy alliance where the government can manipulate the value of their currency and empower their businesses to out compete on the global markets unfairly.

ksk 9y ago
>The difference is that other countries don't combine their businesses with their government, The US government has export embargoes, and has blocked the foreign purchase of US tech firms, citing "national security". The NSA has used US tech firms to spy on foreign citizens/governments. >where the government can manipulate the value of their currency and empower their businesses to out compete on the global markets unfairly. Every government tries to make exports cheaper. How many billions of dollars has the US treasury printed during quantitative easing? Also, for e.g., the US defense only accepts payment in USD for weapons purchases or defense services (to korea, japan, etc) - in part - helping keep the demand for the USD high. Calling it currency manipulation doesn't make it evil when China does it. Its just a game that all countries play and each tries to brush their own motivations under carpets with different words written on top. To me, while it's not a wash, with every country being "equally bad", its a little hypocritical to see countries adopt a "do as i say, not as I did" policy.
- mrkstu 9y ago
  What I think is happening is people are identifying machiavellian actions. Chinese actions aren't 'bad' per se- they are self-interested though- and often in a zero-sum context. The US, despite many deplorable actions by its government over the years, consistently also supported good government initiatives, development initiatives, and generally bi-lateral open markets. This has allowed well run countries access to a large export base with minimal barriers- hence the rise of countries like S. Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan and Germany post WWII, all of which could have been foreclosed by the hyperpower of the US if it so wished. China is completely strategic in leveraging its money and industrial base into more military and political power. It has no problem in leveraging corrupt governments like Venezuela to secure more strategic influence, much like the US did during the Cold War, which at least had the goal and virtue of halting the spread of totalitarian Communism. If a nation is going to act completely self-interested, rather than contribute to the greater good and trust that growing the market ensures more for everyone, it then behooves other countries to act in defense of their self interest in return and potentially act in a coordinated manner to constrain that power. The US, despite its errors, delivers value to its partners. S. Korea, Japan, Germany have all directly benefitted from sheltering in the embrace of American military might. And as the Philippines has shown, the US is more than willing to withdraw from any country (other than Cuba, for historic reasons) that wants it gone.
  - ksk 9y ago
    Thanks for the comment. I agree with some of what you said. My objection is towards the recent (mostly in the west) hyper nationalistic attitude towards China, as-if everything they do is necessarily evil. Personally, I have no dog in this fight as being neither American nor Chinese (not that it should matter anyway :) ). I'd like to counter some of your points though. I don't think the US could have checked the rise of all of those countries. The US (Allies) forced their way economically into Japan/Germany/Korea/etc after the war, in an act of pure self-interest - Reparations, forced exports, etc. They continued to benefit from the rise of those countries anyway. China is strategic as you say, but they've always been isolated from the West. They've tried creating alliances (BRIC), which have been moderately successful. Now they're also trading with many heretofore neglected countries in Africa to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Western media calls it "the new colonialism". I happen to think that this is the west realizing that there is a chance, however slight, that they could be excluded from a large portion of the future growth markets. Maybe an emergence of the Silk Road? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road
  - fspeech 9y ago
    Are you saying China making cell phones and other goods cheaply available didn't benefit most of the people around the world? I don't get your logic.
pishpash 9y ago
What are you talking about? Economic sanction is one of the foremost statecraft tools in the US arsenal.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  Sanctions on a country with privately run businesses is not the same as sanctions on a country with government owned businesses.
dredmorbius 9y ago
"The difference is that other countries don't combine their businesses with their government." This is just flat out and absolutely wrong, in fact, effeect, and strategy. Just one title, author happens to be Chinese, though source is the US, 1952. Economic Warfare. https://www.worldcat.org/title/economic-warfare/oclc/1024506817&referer=brief_results https://www.worldcat.org/title/economic-warfare/oclc/1024506... The author wrote numerous works for U.S. policy organisations from the 1950s-90s. See also, GOEs, such as Sallie Mae and Fanny Mae.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  Are you saying that the Chinese government doesn't own or have controlling stakes in it's own businesses?
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    That was not the element of disagreement.
    - RobertRoberts 9y ago
      Then if China owns it's businesses, then my point stands. China uses their laws to allow their businesses to have advantages that other countries (where the businesses are privately owned) can never have.