WaterMan Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 What balls. "China we owe you tons of money, but we're going to tax you in the mean time. It's like paying you back with your own money." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I have no idea if that particular fact is true or not (wouldn't mind seeing a link)....but the 1930s was a time of enormous protectionist trade wars, which bolsters my point awfully well. The facts are that trade is not a moderating influence when compared to nationalistic self interest. Hell, who do you think that Afghanistan sells its #1 export to? Pretty sure the US is the leader in heroin consumed . . . These are always a delicate balance of taking with one hand while giving back with the other hand. In this era of globalization, there is practically nothing that cannot be obtained through other sources. Countries do not have monopolies on certain products/ goods anymore. I am sure we can find another country to make most of the crap that Americans buy at Walmart . . . . Indonesia? Taiwan? India? etc ./ . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Hell, who do you think that Afghanistan sells its #1 export to? Pretty sure the US is the leader in heroin consumed . . . Thats because Keith Richards lives here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 2nd largest trading partner at a time when everyone is constructing trade barriers and trade in general is way down. and actually, looking at your link, I don't see where the page you link to says anything about france being germany's largest, or second largest, trade partner. here is what your . -sigh- Read the top of page 114 where it clearly states that . . . Germany ranks second for France, with dependence rising for most, but not all, years analyzed, accounting for almost 12% of France's total trade. I do not have my history textbook from college where I first learned that interesting piece of knowledge, so if ya want more . . . I'll get back to ya . . . Az the POINT (despite your checking footnotes) is that trade by itself is NOT always a moderating influence as it relates to military action no matter how you spin it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 18, 2009 Author Share Posted September 18, 2009 The facts are that trade is not a moderating influence when compared to nationalistic self interest. facts are that the two tend to coincide. countries with strong trade ties tend to find it in their national self interest not to try and destroy each other. it's so freaking obvious, I have no idea why you would make the effort to dispute it. Hell, who do you think that Afghanistan sells its #1 export to? Pretty sure the US is the leader in heroin consumed . . . what a dumb argument. may as well start arguing that the US has robust trade with cuba in the form of illegal cigars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I don't think trade is the influence, I think the influence is liberal democratic gov'ts don't tend to start wars. China is not a liberal gov't, nor is it in any way democratic. They would start a war with us in a heartbeat if 1) they thought they would win, and 2) they thought they'd be better off in the long run. You can't analyze those people through the lens of a westerner because they clearly aren't. They don't think in terms of "fair". They think in terms of "us" and "them". Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 18, 2009 Author Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) China is not a liberal gov't, nor is it in any way democratic. They would start a war with us in a heartbeat if 1) they thought they would win, and 2) they thought they'd be better off in the long run. don't dispute that at all. however, to the extent their economic well-being is interdependent with ours, war with us becomes less likely to make them better off in the long run. it imposes an additional cost on their war with us, beyond the cost of bombs and the like. I mean, look, I am under no impression that simply because we buy their crap they will be peaceful and friendly. their self-interest is ultimately adverse to our own, and what I am talking about is fundamental realpolitik. however when adverse interests coincide, it's not in anybody's interests to start blowing chit up. and trade has that effect -- certainly not the only factor, but a powerful one in today's world. Edited September 18, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 facts are that the two tend to coincide. countries with strong trade ties tend to find it in their national self interest not to try and destroy each other. Why trade for it when you can just take it? In general most wars are just armed robbery on a large scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 what a dumb argument. may as well start arguing that the US has robust trade with cuba in the form of illegal cigars. Explain why the US Government isn't getting that money. Or money on other amusements. Instead they seem fine with the black market controlling lots of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) I don't think trade is the influence, I think the influence is liberal democratic gov'ts don't tend to start wars. China is not a liberal gov't, nor is it in any way democratic. They would start a war with us in a heartbeat if 1) they thought they would win, and 2) they thought they'd be better off in the long run. You can't analyze those people through the lens of a westerner because they clearly aren't. They don't think in terms of "fair". They think in terms of "us" and "them". Period. Wait - what was the last war China actually started? A spat with Vietnam back in the late 70s? Before that there was the occasional border clash with the Soviets and also the border war with India in 1962. Other than that they've pretty much been the invaded - not the invader - throughout their history. OTOH, we and our liberal democratic government have the initiation of at least five wars to our name in the last 25 years. None of this means these wars weren't justified (even if at least one wasn't), I'm just pointing out that the " liberal democratic gov'ts don't tend to start wars" mantra is wrong. Edited September 18, 2009 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Wait - what was the last war China actually started? A spat with Vietnam back in the late 70s? Before that there was the occasional border clash with the Soviets and also the border war with India in 1962. Other than that they've pretty much been the invaded - not the invader - throughout their history. OTOH, we and our liberal democratic government have the initiation of at least five wars to our name in the last 25 years. None of this means these wars weren't justified (even if at least one wasn't), I'm just pointing out that the " liberal democratic gov'ts don't tend to start wars" mantra is wrong. Please list the five. I can think of 2, and one is debateable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Please list the five. I can think of 2, and one is debateable. Gulf War One Iraq (GW2) Afghanistan Haiti Grenada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Gulf War OneIraq (GW2) Afghanistan Haiti Grenada Do you really think we started GW1? I seem to remember this little friendly country being overrun. And Afghanistan? GW 2 is the one I was giving you and Haiti was debateable, but I'd forgotten about Grenada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Do you really think we started GW1? I seem to remember this little friendly country being overrun. And Afghanistan? GW 2 is the one I was giving you and Haiti was debateable, but I'd forgotten about Grenada. The point is we didnt need to get involved WV. Gulf War one wasnt about Kuwait, it was about Saudi Arabia being next and the need to protect our interests there both national and individual with the Bush family oil ties. GW II wasnt needed either. Afghanistan was to go after Al Quada when we actually has a coalition of the world supporting us and completely needed, IMO. Haiti and Grenada . . not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Do you really think we started GW1? I seem to remember this little friendly country being overrun. And Afghanistan? GW 2 is the one I was giving you and Haiti was debateable, but I'd forgotten about Grenada. GW1 - certainly we could justify ejecting Saddam, IMO. Not only that, we carried a hugh united coalition and those countries that chose to not send troops paid for it. GW2 - a farrago of lies, deception and armchair geopolitics carried out for purely geopolitical ends and nothing to do with the presumed "justification". Afghanistan - completely justifiable since the regime in that country had openly provided shelter, aid and succor for the perpetrators of 9/11. No brainer. Haiti and Grenada - grotesque overreaches of power. None of our damn business. The point isn't justification, the point is that saying liberal democratic governments (liberal democrat in the classic sense) do not start wars is simply incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) cover story from the most recent Economist A protectionist move that is bad politics, bad economics, bad diplomacy and hurts America. Did we miss anything? YOU can be fairly sure that when a government slips an announcement out at nine o’clock on a Friday night, it is not proud of what it is doing. That is one of the only things that makes sense about Barack Obama’s decision to break a commitment he, along with other G20 leaders, reaffirmed last April: to avoid protectionist measures at a time of great economic peril. In every other way the president’s decision to slap a 35% tariff on imported Chinese tyres looks like a colossal blunder, confirming his critics’ worst fears about the president’s inability to stand up to his party’s special interests and stick to the centre ground he promised to occupy in office. This newspaper endorsed Mr Obama at last year’s election (see article) in part because he had surrounded himself with enough intelligent centrists. We also said that the eventual success of his presidency would be based on two things: resuscitating the world economy; and bringing the new emerging powers into the Western order. He has now hurt both objectives. ouch. hey, wiegie? grunge? where are you guys?! oh and of course, the big picture on the cover must be racist. Edited September 20, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 I blame all of this on Peter, Paul, and Mary. Now we've lost Mary so I guess we need to focus on cheese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 cover story from the most recent Economist ouch. hey, wiegie? grunge? where are you guys?! oh and of course, the big picture on the cover must be racist. Nice picture. In theory, i'm a free trade guy. I don't pretend to know all the details of US-China trade relations, but I do know that we have a huge trade imbalance. I wouldn't exactly call the current state of affairs free trade what with the way China manipulates their currency, etc. Do you subscribe to the Economist? That's a great magazine. I'll be getting it in the mail soon. I just realized I have a ton of frequent flyer miles I wasn't going to use and that I could cash them in for mag subscriptions. My mailbox is about to get overrun with 8 mag subscriptions and 2 newspapers most of which I'll probably never read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Oh yeah, I also recently (a month or 2 ago) put 20% of my 401K into China. I'm wondering it that was a good move or not. Maybe I better back track on that one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 Do you subscribe to the Economist? That's a great magazine. I do, the subscription was a christmas gift. I am a huge fan of the overall writing style. lively, observant and to the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 In theory, i'm a free trade guy. I don't pretend to know all the details of US-China trade relations, but I do know that we have a huge trade imbalance. I wouldn't exactly call the current state of affairs free trade what with the way China manipulates their currency, etc. +1. Free trade is a no-brainer for everyone.....as long as it's free. Most isn't properly free in that the playing field isn't level. Much of the cheap stuff from China you can buy at Walmart et al is the product of virtual slave labor, no safety regulations, etc, etc, etc. That said, the Obama move does break the undertaking of the G-20 summit to not impose tariffs while the world recovers from the recent cataclysm. It is a mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Do you really think we started GW1? I seem to remember this little friendly country being overrun. And Afghanistan? GW 2 is the one I was giving you and Haiti was debateable, but I'd forgotten about Grenada. We didn't start it but we created the situation for SH to do what he did and fed his country all sorts of help against the Persians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 GW1 - certainly we could justify ejecting Saddam, IMO. Not only that, we carried a hugh united coalition and those countries that chose to not send troops paid for it.GW2 - a farrago of lies, deception and armchair geopolitics carried out for purely geopolitical ends and nothing to do with the presumed "justification". Afghanistan - completely justifiable since the regime in that country had openly provided shelter, aid and succor for the perpetrators of 9/11. No brainer. Haiti and Grenada - grotesque overreaches of power. None of our damn business. The point isn't justification, the point is that saying liberal democratic governments (liberal democrat in the classic sense) do not start wars is simply incorrect. See, I don't view us as starting those wars. If you want, you can use that rationale to say we attacked Germany in both WWI and WWII. Oh, and you're right about GW2, Grenada and Haiti - I stand corrected there. Haiti and Grenada are more of little brush fires, like using the military to try and interdict drug shipments into the US. But GW2 is indicative to me that we are becoming less a liberal democratic government and more of a fascist one. (Note - when I say liberal in this instance I refer to a "classical" liberal as it was known in the 18th century, i.e. Jefferson, that French guy, von Mises, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) interesting story about the dead-weight loss of tarriffs To Outfox the Chicken Tax, Ford Strips Its Own Vans BALTIMORE -- Several times a month, Transit Connect vans from a Ford Motor Co. factory in Turkey roll off a ship here shiny and new, rear side windows gleaming, back seats firmly bolted to the floor. Their first stop in America is a low-slung, brick warehouse where those same windows, never squeegeed at a gas station, and seats, never touched by human backsides, are promptly ripped out. The fabric is shredded, the steel parts are broken down, and everything is sent off along with the glass to be recycled. Why all the fuss and feathers? Blame the "chicken tax." The seats and windows are but dressing to help Ford navigate the wreckage of a 46-year-old trade spat. In the early 1960s, Europe put high tariffs on imported chicken, taking aim at rising U.S. sales to West Germany. President Johnson retaliated in 1963, in part by targeting German-made Volkswagens with a tax on imports of foreign-made trucks and commercial vans. The 1960s went the way of love beads and sitar records, but the chicken tax never died. Europe still has a tariff on imports of U.S. chicken, and the U.S. still hits delivery vans imported from overseas with a 25% tariff. American companies have to pay, too, which puts Ford in the weird position of circumventing U.S. trade rules that for years have protected U.S. auto makers' market for trucks. Edited September 24, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Why would a complete van NOT be taxed, where an incomplete one would? Me no comprende. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.