thats is a short and partial answer on trade and labour i suppose, it also touches on the inflation due to limited capital but does little to the strains on trade. i get that china uses our currency to keep it inflated but for the trade you suggested theres no definite line saying china or america made more on this trade aswell there is a lot more labour on china's side of the trade. even more a lot of the materials used by china are mined in china.

as for the american cash pool we play this game of printing cash and then turning around and saying there is this debt ceiling and if we go too far there will be deflation, which is what we want? but no now were at this imaginary limit. what we want is for china's cash to inflate while our cash remains reletively the same purchasing power in europe, while this would give both the US and europe a quick way to boost exports, pay off debts and to shift the control to our side a bit more.

i guess the intention of this post was to test the overall opinion on this media attack of china and the intended results from this attack, what america's plan of action is to gain control of this quicksand market because from my point of veiw this is a bunch of people with a lot of cash playing hardball on the bidding pool trying to bluff thier opponents out of the run.

we simply need china to stop taking economic precautions for a while and our financial sharks will dig into them

It's only a matter of time before China succeeds in its aspiration to become the world's leading economic power again.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> It's only a matter of time before China succeeds in its aspiration to become the world's leading economic power again.

Since when weren't the Chinese the leading economic power? (China's growth figures only just dropped out of the double figures I believe)...and as purchasing US raw goods, China seeks alot of raw materials from wherever it can get to continue growing (for example, Australia, and Africa). You really think China gives a damn about the US? (in fact China was very angry at the recent arms deal to Taiwan, but that's a seperate issue). Obama slipping up on the Yuan devaluation is a risky move for Obama, because he is trying to shift the balance back to the US (summarised in this thread) however, as a student of Chinese culture and International Relations, it not only shows a rather weak standpoint from Obama, but also causing the Chinese to "lose face" by implying unethical economic practice.

I am a bit fuzzy on the economic side of it all, but also wouldn't the rising PPP resulting from an increase in the value of the Yuan also increase demand for foreign luxury goods? (increasing exports in places such as Europe? [I see many stores here selling foreign wines from Australia and alot from France...also the car of choice here is BMW from what I can see]). Just seems like an SOS call to me, coupled with an insult to the people they are asking for help from

Idealism of human rights?! In the West?!? PAH!!!!

Liberalism (political ideology covering all western nations), has rejected the protection of human rights just the same as other nations in the world. The situation in the US social system is in shambles...the ratio of population in prison is staggering, health care systems, housing, the number of homeless...the list continues. Nations like Australia (I am Australian) only protects 2 human rights (I am comparing to the list covered by the UDHR) which is the freedom to religious expression (which is still questionable) and the right to a fair trial. The US has not fully ratified the Rome Statue, and means it is not subject to war crime charges (although I wonder who would ever be capable of bringing someone in the US to the court to face those charges). The US has warmongered for the better part of the last half century. Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan (both recently and aiding during the Soviet invasion), Iraq, Yugoslavia, they have also ignored trade sanctions put in place to deter human rights abuses (eg, South Africa, they sold uranium, dispute the trade sanctions, in the hopes of creating a nuclear deterent against Communism in Africa...I am not sure if this was ever accomplished though).

Now as for the rule of "Get them before they get you", this is also explained by the liberal ideology. Although liberalism is supposed to promote free elections and such, and that war between liberal states is non-existant, they are openly more aggressive towards non-liberal states and always will be (unless every nation becomes liberal then we may have peace...although at the hands of a hegemon).

As for the alliance between the Russians and China, that is a very old relationships, that has come closer to nuclear war than was seen in Cuba in the 1960's. It has always been an uneasy relationships. China also doesn't need to rely heavily on the Russian gas/oil supplies (especially when Australia sells it so cheap), whereas the Japanese rely solely on importing oil and gas (partly the reason for the attack on Pearl Harbour...the US threatened to cut the Japanese oil supply unless they withdrew troops from China, and so the Japanese attacked...or so I heard)...

China has always been interested in bolstering itself up, and never on conquest, so I doubt you will ever be enslaved to a "Chinese empire" however rely heavily on Asian economies to bail the US out of debt crisis...most definately...

I agree with you on that one...but that leads to a very grim world indeed...also saw you editted your previous post, so wanna comment on that also

Also, with the "increase in military adventures to advance human rights", if you are referring to intervention into nations in the middle-east/africa, there is more there than just human rights. Never will a nation truly intervene on the sole basis of protecting human rights (perfect example, and potentially overused as an example, is the genocide in Rwanda). Libya was to stop the potential flood of refugees into Europe. Iraq, well there is alot of speculation with that one. Somalia? The US aided and abetted the Barre Dictatorship in Somalia before going in there to restore peace. I would love to find some really good examples where intervention was solely for humanitarian aid.

You will always be able to look at the world using a realist approach, but it by no means unifies foreign policy analysis. We have begun to see some cooperation between nations that simply cannot be truly explained by realism. The liberal peace theory is one, but also cooperation on treaties such as the Montreal Protocol. But then we see the realism shine through again with the Kyoto Protocol. But the point is, you can't rely on one theory to truly explain any 1 situation. Every possible theory should be used to understand the situation, not just using one theory.

> Wornstrum wrote:

Since when weren't the Chinese the leading economic power?

Since, oh, I don't know, the 1800s - the opium wars?

i will say that there is a realignment of power happening very quickly, within the last 5 years china's currency has doubled its worth and for the recent month it has gone from 77 to 75. who knows where this will stop relative to other currencies but very soon china's grip on the market will be reduced heavily and this market nonsense will stop.

and? ofcourse they are going to grow, if they didnt that would hurt the world signifacantly right now, for thier currency to gain worth(the opposite of inflation) means that we can eventually pull a china and sell for cheap

xeno - No
The growth rate may be declining

See: here we are (2010 was about the same as 2006 in terms of GDP per Capita) according to this source:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ch&v=67

"China in 2010 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, having surpassed Japan in 2001"

"In 2009, the global economic downturn reduced foreign demand for Chinese exports for the first time in many years, but China rebounded quickly, outperforming all other major economies in 2010 with GDP growth around 10%. The economy appears set to remain on a strong growth trajectory in 2011, lending credibility to the stimulus policies the regime rolled out during the global financial crisis."

These were both sourced from the source of your source (that sounds awkward )...who would have thought that an economy based on exports would be affected by a global economic downturn? The PPP figures are only just below the 2006 value, and trending upwards. The growth figures for last year were back in the double figures, and according to your source, the PPP GDP only declined during one year and has recovered since (with a trajectory that suggests continued growth)...

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html