Wow … based on multiple local blog posts of late (here at the Peoria Chronicle, here and here at Peoria Pundits), the spirit of Joe McCarthy lives on in Central Illinois. I think some local bloggers and their commenters have been watching too many re-runs of Red Dawn and Amerika. It’s like the Red Scare all over again.
I think most Chinese are more interested in buying a house, a car and a cellphone than in taking over America. Picking a fight with us would be the ultimate stupidity … we’re their gravy train! That’s why TRADE IS GOOD. If either side gets too belligerent, both suffer economically.
Also think about this … we can find cheap labor and manufacturing elsewhere. Where else are the Chinese going to find the richest country in the world?
Another reality reminder … the Bush administration started this whole Star Wars arms race by throwing out the ABM treaty in 2002. They got the Ruskies and the Chinese all in a tizzy by threatening the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, and then proceeded to bog down our military in Iraq. For all their claims to be the party that’s strong on defense, the Republicans sure are moronic strategists.
Regarding the trade deficit with China that gets so much play in the MSM and the blogosphere … all that really tells us is the United States is a rich country (we have all the cash) and China is a relatively poor country (they have all the cheap labor). Of course we buy more from them than they buy from us. Whoopdeedoo. It’s essentially meaningless hysteria fodder used by the Democrats to score points with the labor unions and Republicans to play to the defense hawks. Don’t fall for it.
I’m not saying that China’s new anti-satellite missile capability isn’t disturbing. However, what’s more disturbing to me – and much more concerning for our status as a world leader and our security – is that the Chinese are taking all the cash we’re spending there and lending it back to us. The Chinese are now one of our biggest creditors.
If there’s a deficit you want to worry about, don’t look at the trade deficit. Instead look at our enormous and continuously growing federal budget deficit and the fact that we’re borrowing heavily from the Chinese. It’s hard for the U.S. to exert influence over China in regards to issues like the environment and human rights when we’re heavily in debt to them and our military is stretched thin and exhausted. For all this we can give thanks to one of the worst presidents in our history.
17 responses so far ↓
1
C. J. Summers
// Jun 14, 2007 at 11:38 am
Right, right, I forgot that communists are good guys now and any injustice in the world is America’s fault. Thanks for reminding me of that.
Now we can get back to the really important issues facing us today, like smoking in restaurants.
2
Joe McCarthy had the right idea | Peoria Pundits
// Jun 14, 2007 at 5:44 pm
[...] liberal blogger friends would be the first to accuse me of a Commie Witch Hunter. Turns out it was Knight in Dragonland: Wow … based on multiple local blog posts of late (here at the Peoria Chronicle, here and here at [...]
3
franz
// Jun 14, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Most Chinese aren’t communist either but are subjugated by communists. And I suppose there is nothing wrong with communists. Nothing until they lie and trick you about all that is important, execute half your family and then take your land(as happened to my family). Otherwise they are just good ole blokes who eat and drink just like us, play cards just like us, trade just like us, and die just like us. Communists are human too after all. They just happen to be some of the worst humans. Venezuela is finding out the dynamics and trickery of communism rather methodically these days. But it all alright. Everything is fine.
4
franz
// Jun 14, 2007 at 11:35 pm
By the way the federal deficit is down 34.6% from last year and has been declining. Was reported earlier this week.
http://fe25.news.re3.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070612/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/federal_budget_11
The debt the Chinese buy is not a bad thing. It’s an excellent investment by the Chinese. Don’t worry. If there were ever to be a default the Chinese won’t own the deed on the United States.
5
franz
// Jun 14, 2007 at 11:37 pm
But I do agree with you on one thing. Bush is the worst president ever.
6
knightindragonland
// Jun 20, 2007 at 9:44 am
C.J.,
Really, snark is the best you can come up with?
Your comment is about exactly the same response that I got from Billy to my previous post. Actually, your statement is more exaggerated than Billy’s, and it shows even more clearly the obtuse misrepresentation of my statements and evasion of the arguments presented.
Where did I ever say that the Communist Party of the P.R.C. was the “good guy”??? And excuse me for holding the United States to a higher standard, but I never said that the U.S. was responsible for “all the injustice in the world.” I gave very specific examples of immoral actions by the government of the United States. If you wish to defend those specific actions while castigating the Methodist Church for owning Walmart stock and me for my campaign against the number one cause of death and disability in this country, then I suggest you toss your Moral Authority badge in the trashcan … because your priorities are OBVIOUSLY misaligned.
7
C. J. Summers
// Jun 20, 2007 at 1:07 pm
And comparing my original comments to McCarthyism and the Red Scare wasn’t exaggerated? Or is exaggeration only okay if you do it?
8
knightindragonland
// Jun 20, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I think your paranoia about China is overblown and counterproductive, just like Joe McCarthy’s fear of American communism. That was all I was suggesting in this post. Your response to that was to evade my arguments, misrepresent my words and label me as un-American. That is also McCarthyistic.
I guess the label fits more than I originally expected.
9
C. J. Summers
// Jun 20, 2007 at 11:29 pm
You compare me to McCarthy and wonder why I write a snarky comment. I explain that it’s because you compared me to McCarthy, and your response is to compare me to him again! Ten points for audacity, Dr. Weidman.
Perhaps the reason you’re so clueless is because you think a comparison to McCarthy merely means “fear of American communism.” In reality, it’s far more incendiary. Perhaps you should do some more reading on McCarthy before you carelessly compare your friends (?) to him.
You want me to respond to your “arguments”? Here you go:
Inflammatory and completely untrue. McCarthy believed that Communists were infiltrating our government and trying to influence American society from the inside. He defamed people personally, accusing them of political disloyalty and subversion to suppress opposition and ruined many careers. I did nothing — nothing — remotely analogous to that. All I did was report what I felt was an underreported story — namely, that China could now blow satellites out of the sky, which is a fact — and mused that, based upon increased defense funding that resulted from that revelation, this could be the start of another arms race. You acknowledged yourself that China’s anti-satellite capability is “disturbing.”
First of all, I think most Americans are more interested in buying a house, a car and a cellphone than in taking over Iraq, but we still took over Iraq, didn’t we? Even though your premise if faulty (which I’ll get to next), your rebuttal is nonsensical, since it’s not the average citizens that make the military decisions of a country.
But that’s all moot because I never said, nor do I believe, that China is planning to take over the U.S. or attack the U.S. In fact, I specifically said the exact opposite, so this comment was a total misrepresentation of my post. What I did say was that I think China wants to take over Taiwan and could use this technology to keep other countries from effectively intervening in such a situation. It would be helpful if you would actually read my post before arguing against it.
Trade with China is a whole separate topic. I’m not a proponent of normal trade relations with China given their human rights abuses.
Again, you’re arguing against the idea of China invading the U.S., which is something I never propounded.
The Strategic Defense Initiative was intended to blow nuclear missiles from rogue states and/or terrorists out of the sky. This is a far cry from developing weapons that can destroy and/or blind satellites in orbit. Further, we made our intentions known ahead of time and gave assurances to the Russians and Chinese, which they accepted. Your comment attempts to blame America for China’s escalation. I don’t buy that.
It’s not meaningless hysteria. First of all, working conditions in China are deplorable. Check out China Labor Watch. Apparently, while we wouldn’t treat Americans this way, we have no problem treating Asians inhumanely as long as it means we can get our clothes and toys for a couple of bucks cheaper. Secondly, the trade imbalance is a little more complicated than you describe. It takes away jobs and the replacement jobs pay 20% less than the ones sent overseas. Plus it transfers our knowledge base and our manufacturing to competing economies.
I generally agree with your last two paragraphs, so I won’t quote them again. One exception is I don’t believe Bush is our worst president. Jimmy Carter was.
10
knightindragonland
// Jun 22, 2007 at 5:21 pm
C.J.,
OK, deep breaths for both of us.
What got me fired up what your first characterization of my post …
I said nothing of the sort, and I deeply resent the inference from both you and Billy that I’m anti-American. Our right to openly disagree with our government is the epitome of what it means to be an American. It doesn’t mean I hate my country, and I’m sick of conservatives using that tactic. They even named a particularly abhorrent anti-Constitutional piece of legislation the “Patriot Act.” So if you oppose it, you’re not a patriot? Bull. I think those with a progressive view tend to casually dismiss this sort of accusation. I’m not going to do that.
I’ll refrain from further McCarthy references if you’ll quit inferring that I hate my country … deal?
I’ll admit to “lumping” with my post. Your post on China’s anti-satellite missile capability happened to occur concurrently with Billy’s “Commie scumbag” posts. You certainly articulated some genuine concerns regarding China, and were much more specific in outlining your concerns. I should have addressed your concerns separately.
A total misrepresentation? Ohhh reeeally? Let’s quote from your original post:
Did you forget about your own parenthetical addendum (which I highlighted for emphasis)? Methinks thou doest protest too much at my characterization of your post, Sir C.J.
Regarding the ABM treaty … yes, the U.S. government did inform the Russians and Chinese well ahead of time that we were going to unilaterally and unethically break our word on an international agreement and thumb our nose at their security concerns. Do I think this Chinese ASAT capability is a response to our pursuit of a missile shield? Most certainly! The Russians and the Chinese have made it abundantly clear that they think our “rogue state” rhetoric is a load of bull. Any missile shield could be used to diminish their nuclear strike capability while maintaining our own. Any missile shield technology would rely heavily on satellites as well as ground-based radar systems, so the Chinese respond by producing ASAT capability.
Regarding shifting labor markets …
Companies are going to utilize cheap labor to reduce costs, whether it’s in China or someplace else. Those workers are breaking down the doors to get those jobs because they pay many times more than they could make anywhere else in their country. Its not like those laborers will skip down the road to Shangri-La if the “evil” multinationals go away. More likely they’d end up begging on the street, picking through garbage dumps or selling their children for prostitution.
Transfers of labor save more than “a few dollars.” They save BILLIONS of dollars. A company can employ many Chinese laborers for what it would cost to employ one American, and the income for those workers often increases several-fold over what they could earn anywhere else in their own county. At the cost of one American job, 5, 10 or even 20 foreigners can vastly improve their income and the quality of life for their family. That’s what happens most often when jobs travel to cheaper labor markets … one American makes 20% less, but now ten foreigners can send their children to school and feed their entire extended family.
Do some companies take advantage of the desperation of poor foreigners and abuse them? Of course. Should those companies be held accountable? Of course. But we need to tread cautiously. Sometimes our well-meaning outrage at these “deplorable” working conditions ends up sending hundreds of workers to the streets to beg because now they have no job at all.
As far as the contender for the worst president … yes, I agree, Jimmy Carter was not an effective president. However, he did not ignore the Constitution nor coddle and shield the advocates and perpetrators of torture as Bush has. Carter and Bush might have been equivalent in their managerial ineptitude, but Carter didn’t have anything equivalent to the morally repugnant specters of Abu Ghraib, extreme rendition or Guantanamo on his record.
11
Eric
// Jun 23, 2007 at 12:02 pm
(KID): I agree on the president evaluation, Carter was stupid from being naive. Bush is stupid from being cocky blind to the obvious.
Next to ourselves, China is our biggest ememy.
Observation, you seem to get very upset that others misquote or misunderstand your thoughts and call you names. I remember you doing the same with different past posts on issues. Maybe you don’t realize that you practice a double standard.
12
knightindragonland
// Jun 23, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Eric,
I wouldn’t call Carter stupid, because he’s certainly not. Naive, I’ll grant you. Bush, on the other hand … he might not be stupid, but he has absolutely zero intellectual curiosity. We have a spoiled, frat boy jock running the White House. More accurately … he’s being run around the White House by his handlers, because he’s totally incapable of real leadership. He should have stuck with the Texas Rangers.
I don’t think China needs to be our enemy. I don’t think it’s wise foreign policy for us to make them our enemy. Reverting to protectionism or militaristic saber rattling is counter-productive.
Why? Because in the long run … we lose. In the future – whether it be 50, 100 or 200 years from now – the fulcrum of world power will tilt across the Himalayas between China and India. The anomaly of Western power induced by the Industrial Revolution and European exploitation of the Americas will come to an end, and Asia will again reign supreme as it has for most of the history of civilization. We can be a burned out has-been, or a vibrant competitor and contributor to that world. Belligerence leads to the former, in my opinion.
I think we should secure good relations with both sides of that future power struggle, but if we had to “pick sides”, India – an imperfect democracy, but a democracy nonetheless – would be the logical choice of allies. In that case, our number one foreign policy objective should be settling the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. A nuclear conflict between those two countries would guarantee China’s future supremacy.
Yes Eric … sometimes I get angry and fired up and do a bit of name calling. Forgive me for being human. Most often its in response to unsolicited attacks, but I’ll admit that sometimes it’s not. I actually didn’t intend the “spirit of McCarthy” comment to be as insulting as some took it.
13
C. J. Summers
// Jun 24, 2007 at 12:19 am
Knight,
I did not call you unAmerican. One can believe that America is doing everything wrong and still be an American. Nevertheless, since you took my comments that way, I apologize and accept your truce.
My parenthetical comment in my original post did not imply that I believed China was going to attack the U.S. You’re trying to read something between the lines that simply isn’t there. I said that no one had even suggested such a thing, and added “yet” as an acknowledgment that such a thing might be said by someone in the future.
I don’t buy your arguments for utilizing cheap labor in China. Rather than put a really long reply here in your comments section, I’m going to write a post on my own blog to explain my reasoning. Look for it sometime soon.
14
knightindragonland
// Jun 24, 2007 at 1:04 am
C.J.,
My apologies as well. I look forward to continuing our debate, and I’ll do my best to maintain my decorum this time.
15
The Peoria Chronicle » Blog Archive » A discussion about “cheap labor”
// Jun 24, 2007 at 4:04 am
[...] set this up, I’m going to quote liberally from one of Knight’s recent comments because what he says is a defense of cheap overseas labor that I’ve heard many times: [...]
16
Clement
// Jun 24, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Knight could you elaborate on your assertion that the “anomaly” of western power will end?
Will you also clarify your statement “Asia will again reign supreme as it has for most of the history of civilization”?
Thanks, Clement
17
knightindragonland
// Jun 25, 2007 at 1:20 am
For most of recorded history, Asia has been the world’s center of population and economic and scientific development. I suppose one could make an argument that the Roman Empire was a European “superpower” of the ancient world, but for most of its history the Empire was really quite stagnant. Rome made some inroads against various incarnations of the Persian Empire, but much of its territorial expansion actually occurred during the Republican period.
The Greeks were certainly great innovators, but they spent most of their time fighting each other, and their population was relatively minuscule compared to coexisting Asian civilizations. Had Alexander the Great lived past his early 30s and consolidated his empire, then that might also have been an exception to my characterization … although the vast majority of his empire was in Asia!
For most of its post-Roman history, Europeans spent their time fighting each other and under the shadow of invading Asians – Moors, Mongols, Turks. Asian supremacy only vanished with the Age of Exploration and the Industrial Revolution, which catapulted first the British Empire and then the U.S. as central figures on the world stage. The atomic age brought Russia to the forefront along with the U.S., although for only a very short period of time, historically.
But now the fruits of the industrial revolution and nuclear power have passed on to Asia, and the economies of China and India are growing at staggering rates. Barring some catastrophe, their economies will eventually outpace our own. It’s only a matter of time.
Leave a Comment