"'Dangerous' U.S. creating chaos in Asia" Topic

China's embassy in the Philippines has denounced the United States for "creating chaos" in Asia, after a visiting White House envoy backed countries in disputes with China and accused Beijing of using military pressure to further its interests…

link

Ha, ha, ha!!!

Love their spin at trying to lay this at our feet.

The total lack of self-awareness (actually, I suspect those printing and publishing stuff like this realize the truth, but need to go along with the false narrative lest they and their family be shot, or worse) and obfuscation is breathtaking.

link

This is part of the battlefield now.

It will need a cunning strategy to oppose this. It seems like it's counterproductive for China to talk so much arrant nonsense – but they are not totally stupid. There must be some strategy behind it.

It's going to demand a coherent, consistent and multi-faceted approach to counter China.

In addition to military realignment out of the Middle East and into the Pacific/Asia, economic, financial, diplomatic and cyber countermeasures need to be taken. This will have to be above domestic US political in-fighting. Foreign policy seldom changes regardless of which branch of the US business party is in the White House, so this can be done.

My take on this is the US has to do 2 things as a top priority to counter China.

1] Fix its broken economy. Collect tax income from those who have the money – not from those who struggle to live day to day. Stop capital being invested in China and insist it is invested in the US or in economies that compete fairly. This is going to need regulation and those who own the US government are going to resist. Stop borrowing from China and pay off the loans [print the money if need be].

2] Rebuild genuine alliances within the region. This will involve investment/aid to counter China's strategy of making loans and then taking over assets when the loans are impossible to repay. The US will need money for this, which goes back to point 1.

In tandem, the US has to maintain its considerable lead in conventional [and nuclear] forces in the region. China is gaining ground but is still way behind, so no need to freak out. But if ignored for 20 years then China could become a real threat.

Elsewhere in the World, the US needs to stop interfering in elections and mounting coups or regime change invasions when a government is elected that is doesn't like. Thereby gaining the moral high ground which is essential for diplomatic influence.

It doesn't look good to support Saudi Arabia unconditionally and condemn China, either.

"Come on man, they're not bad folks, folks". LOL

Collect tax income from those who have the money – not from those who struggle to live day to day.

Such a simple statement; I wonder why it hasn't been accomplished by any of our previous benevolent leaders before? Oh, that's right, because when you say "tax the rich", it's the middle class who pays. It's like saying let's tax all those big evil corporations. Do you really think the rich are going to take a salary cut or is it more likely they'll make their employees and customers eat it.

Most naive statement I've read all year.

Agree – not straightforward and the rich will fight it. However – what is the alternative? Economic decline continues or strike at the heart of the problem? The elephant in the room.

It was not always how it is today – so why can't we even talk about how to go back to a 1950s progressive tax structure?

Gentlemen, you have drifted into politics. "Danger, Danger, Will Robinson!"

I think it's not party political though. Both US parties have been corrupted by money. While that continues, the US will be paralysed by having leaders who are not acting in their interests.

Well Skarper, I mostly agree regarding the Parties, but we just had a leader who seemed to actually be working in the US (hell, even in the little guy's) interest, but the Media and the other party spent 24/7 trying to undo that election even as things were going well. Anyhoo, then the Chinese unleashed their virus.

Love their spin at trying to lay this at our feet.

After all they are students of Sun Tzu.

Both US parties have been corrupted by money. While that continues, the US will be paralysed by having leaders who are not acting in their interests.

And this is only in the USA ? It's pretty much the norm worldwide. Geopolitics/Realpolitik creates many, many, grey areas.

Elsewhere in the World, the US needs to stop interfering in elections and mounting coups or regime change invasions when a government is elected that is doesn't like. Thereby gaining the moral high ground which is essential for diplomatic influence.

Just the USA does this ? Again, in many cases this is the norm almost worldwide. Moral high ground ? … Many places on the planet have no idea what that is or cares. Or they just ignore it … To gain what they want … That is the cold reality …

Some comments scares me, much too much idealistic and in turn unrealistic. Thinking like this could be dangerous at some point IMO. "Give Peace a chance, but I'll cover you anyway … "

mjkerner +1 Good observations … and I agree. If I say more I'll be DH'd … So …

Back when Eisenhower was president, the top tax rate was 91%, & it was a "use it or lose it." Either you used it in investments, or you lost most of it to taxes. The rich were still rich, & could afford their yachts, mansions, & expensive cars, but they were forced to work for their money & help drive the economy. It was "trickle-down" economics, but for real rather than the fake stuff that is pushed today. That & the favorable post-war economic situation is a big reason, IMHO, why the US was so prosperous.

Damon.

"1] Fix its broken economy. Collect tax income from those who have the money – not from those who struggle to live day to day. Stop capital being invested in China and insist it is invested in the US or in economies that compete fairly. This is going to need regulation and those who own the US government are going to resist. Stop borrowing from China and pay off the loans [print the money if need be]."

Uh – the real question is why the US Government doesn't
call in the Chinese Debt (China owes the US FAR more than
vice versa).

The US pays interest on its debt to China – China does not
reciprocate.

At a minimum, trade-off the Chinese debt versus the
US debt to China then call in what China still owes in
some form other than monetary. Strategic minerals might
be a good start.

yachts, mansions

Wait !!! I never got a mansion or yacht !!! 😨😧😦😥

the real question is why the US Government doesn't
call in the Chinese Debt (China owes the US FAR more than
vice versa).

Good point … but some in the US Gov't, their relatives and friends make some $$$$ from dealing directly with the PRC/CCP and some other nations as well. At least that is what I heard in the media …

As long as someone is creating chaos in Asia does it really matter who it is?

N.B. My mob used to have form for this sort of thing back in the day, now we can barely create chaos in Europe.

Chinese government foreign policy/diplomatic announcements tend to be solely for the domestic chinese audience.
Appeasement never works.

"1] Fix its broken economy. Collect tax income from those who have the money – not from those who struggle to live day to day. Stop capital being invested in China and insist it is invested in the US or in economies that compete fairly. This is going to need regulation and those who own the US government are going to resist. Stop borrowing from China and pay off the loans [print the money if need be]."

Nice Socialist policy there Skarper… you do know that the top 1% of US taxpayers represent 90% of personal income tax collected ? And you suggest they should pay more ? … printing money doesn't work either … junkets you want to go full Zimbabwe or Venezuela

Nice Socialist policy there Skarper… you do know that the top 1% of US taxpayers represent 90% of personal income tax collected ? And you suggest they should pay more ?

This is because the top 1% have most of the money in this country. If you don't consider that, then it sure looks unfair. But when the rest of the country has but a fraction of what the wealthiest have, then yes most of the tax money will come from the rich. This fact is less an indictment against "socialism" but an example of how unequal wealth distribution is in the US, & it has only gotten worse over the last 30 or 40 years.

Damon.

Isn't wealth distribution also skewed in so-called socialist countries as well? Masses of poor folks and a handful of the ruling class with all the wealth.

For fixing an economy, I would suggest fewer laws, less governmental oversight, lowing the regulatory burden and letting citizens create businesses.

The irony is that the US is declining very well on its own irrespective of China, given its deeply rooted internal problems and divisions arising from inequitable wealth distribution and systemic racism.

Isn't wealth distribution also skewed in so-called socialist countries as well? Masses of poor folks and a handful of the ruling class with all the wealth.

And…?

Many of the "socialist" countries pointed out are in fact mixed economies, that use socialism as a mechanism to (attempt) to address the iniquities of capitalism. Including Venezuela.

The problem with Venezuela isn't socialism, but the fact that they had (& still have) left-wing populists in power. Populism is unhealthy for the state, whether it comes from the left or the right. But it is easy to declare "socialism is the problem!" without actually digging into it. This is a popular belief I encounter in the internet. A little more analysis is useful.

The irony is that the US is declining very well on its own irrespective of China, given its deeply rooted internal problems and divisions arising from inequitable wealth distribution and systemic racism.

Fareed Zakaria, a journalist I respect very much (despite the allegation of plagiarism he had several years ago) suggests it is not that the US is necessarily declining (though that is arguable, I admit), but that China & the rest of the world are growing. A high tide lifts all boats, as Reagan liked to say.

Damon.

Nothing wrong with socialism – in moderation.

The rich should definitely pay more. They are able to avoid/evade paying tax in numerous ways. About 2/3 of Americans agree. Americans are actually quite socialist as long as you ask about policies and not just labels.

It's kind of strange, but I suspect increased socialism is the key to countering China's rise. Increased socialism means less malnutrition, less avoidable health problems, less crime, higher wages, more domestic demand for US made goods, better education outcomes, etc. All these help economies thrive.

Unless we count the ~$1.6 trillion owed by the pre-communist Chinese government [which could tenuously be traced to the PRC via Taiwan] China hardly owes the US anything in contrast to the over 1 trillion USD the US owes China. I don't think anybody seriously expects the Chinese to pay back the debts of the Nationalist regime. It's akin to the UK and others asking the US to pay off Confederate civil war debt…ain't gonna happen – nor should it.

I know Vietnam paid the debts of the defeated South Vietnam regime in 1997, but I can't see that happening with China.

Also, the US debt held by China is not such a big risk – yet. If allowed to grow for 10-20 years it could become an issue.

China of course has its own problems. Corruption, mismanagement and the growth rate is falling. China is no longer able to raise living standards for the younger generations like it did for generation after generation before. They are losing some manufacturing due to the post Covid situation [some is coming to Vietnam].

uch a simple statement; I wonder why it hasn't been accomplished by any of our previous benevolent leaders before? Oh, that's right, because when you say "tax the rich", it's the middle class who pays. It's like saying let's tax all those big evil corporations. Do you really think the rich are going to take a salary cut or is it more likely they'll make their employees and customers eat it.

Most naive statement I've read all year.

Marginal tax rates for the rich in 1960 used to be 91% applied to single income earners on $200,000 USD+ or $400,000 USD+ for family. This equates to roughly $1.5 USD million and $3 USD million today.

Today that top marginal tax rate is 37% for singles on $510,301 USD+ or $612,351 USD+ for families.

Tax rates for the rich have been in free-fall for decades and not just in America.

Western countries were most successful in improving living standards in the periods when the rich were heavily taxed and companies reasonably heavily regulated.

The problems arose when the westerners let the Arab and Asian countries gain power in the 1960s and 1970s whilst engaging in stupid behaviour like Vietnam.

They allowed the Asian countries like Japan or South Korea to undercut western manufacturing. The Asians never practiced free trade, there was always extensive government support, rules and regulations that protected their industries.

They allowed the Arabs to control oil flows in the 1970s.

And then the westerners messed up by embracing neoliberalism, which is a perverse form of capitalism that removes all rules and empowers the rich at the expense of the working and middle classes.

Nice Socialist policy there Skarper… you do know that the top 1% of US taxpayers represent 90% of personal income tax collected ? And you suggest they should pay more ?

Yep, just like they used to. Or scrap neoliberal policies that allow transfers of huge amounts of money to tax havens, which is how the 1% actually avoid paying as much tax as they really should.

This hidden wealth accounts for 10% of the global economy.

Nothing wrong with socialism – in moderation.

Yes.

I think one of the most disingenuous facets of this argument is that somehow socialism & capitalism is diametrically opposed (when in fact we have a multitude of nations that deny this dichotomy).

As an example of how both systems can work hand-in-hand. I would love to start a gig type job. Working for myself, setting my own hours, & being an entrepreneur. I cannot do that because of my health issues & I need heath insurance. So I am tied to working for someone else, & whatever innovations I can bring to the table will not be realized because the risk it too high -- more than just losing my house, but possibly losing my health & life due to a lack of medical access. BUT if we had single payer healthcare, like much of the developed world, I can be that entrepreneur, take those risks, & possibly innovate to grow the economy in some small way.

But when the word "socialism" is used, people picure Venezuela & Cuba, not Norway or France. It's called Confirmation Bias: the bias in which the observer self-picks evidence that supports their bias, but ignores evidence that contradicts their bias. I see a lot of that. A lot…

Damon.

The irony is that the US is declining very well on its own irrespective of China, given its deeply rooted internal problems and divisions arising from inequitable wealth distribution and systemic racism.

Do you know what the most effective form of brainwashing is?

Answer: repetition.

The msm bombards us 24/7 with what racist we all are.

I have news for you, the USA is one of the least racist countries in the world. People from all over the world immigrate to the United States because we are still the land of opportunity for ALL.

link

link

The gini coefficient measures inequality.

It's not the case that more socialist countries are worse than capitalist countries in general. It can happen, but by and large the social democracies all have the greatest equality.

link

There is statistical data out there that suggests systemic racism is a thing.

I can speak from my personal experience too. I am the whitest white guy there is. But my wife is a Latina Ecuatoriana. My previous girlfriend was an Ecuatoriana as well. My wife is quite noticeably darker than me, with black hair. We sometimes get dirty looks when we are seen in public in the US, because some people disapprove of "interracial" relationships. As well, if she turns up at say Macy's to look at Michael Kors purses, & is dressed down, she gets looks because the staff is afraid she might steal something, That at least is an example of racism, mild as it might be. Others have it much worse.

Damon.

Americans also seem to fail to realise their economy is a mixed economy.

All of the following are provided by governments and thus socialist in nature:

Hospitals
Schools/universities
Police forces
Firefighting services
Sewerage and water
Libraries, sporting venues etc
Public engineering and works (including US Army Corps of Engineers)
Rail transport (Amtrack is private but not for profit and receives massive government subsidies)
Medicare/Medicaid
National Parks
Museums
Social Security
US military including the whole corrupt military industrial complex.
Etc etc

If USA was truly 100% capitalist, most of these things would be provided by private sector with no government input or not provided at all (eg Medicaid/Medicare).

I wonder whether those throwing around the word "socialist" would be happy to scrap most of those things listed above.

All national economies comprise of two main parts: the public sector and the private sector. The former is provided by all levels of government and funded by taxpayers (no matter how begrudgingly) and hence socialist in nature, while the latter is considered private "business and industry" that operates in the free market system with little or no government interference.

Even China has a robust private sector that's the main driving force behind its rise (not state capitalism):

link

Do you know what the most effective form of brainwashing is?

Answer: repetition.

And do you know what the most effective form of denial is?

Answer: Burying one's head in the sand while "vindicated" by one's confirmation bias.

Fanatik, very true for most part.

China's situation is more complex than that article states. In fact I find the article's tone to be a bit Chinese apologist.

China's private sector exists but it is heavily influenced by the government.

Communist Party committees exist within 76% of all private companies and in many cases what are essentially commissars sit on boards of private companies. Chinese private companies often thrive due to the links they have with Communist Party, not just because of their innate capabilities.

Chinese companies also act to pursue the country's political goals.

The party controls interactions with foreign markets and this includes joint ventures (which usually require 51% Chinese ownership).

And it all plugs into an older patronage system of guanxi – ie personal networks and mutual obligations.

link

The Chinese model is essentially fascist – basically the government fosters private sector but only within the bounds of achieving national goals.

The South Koreans, Japanese and Taiwanese ran similar albeit more subtle economic systems and arguably still do so. Eg the Japanese zaibatsu and keiretsu business groupings have always had close links with government whilst in Korea the chaebol conglomerates are heavily involved in politics.

I think it works in North Asia because of certain cultural factors and primarily collectivism as guided by Confucianism, Taoism.

It also helps that unlike the westerners, North Asians understand the power of subtle manipulations and that power is more than just military.

---

At University I did once read an article that stated the CIA determined that by the mid-1970s American corporations no longer took into account what was the best for the USA and often acted against US national interests.

Arealdeadone…interesting about the CIA stat. The cutting of the intelligence network post-1992 has led to a deaf and blind network where USA concerns are.

The case is plain. It will be a China vs. USA game and I am very concerned the USA does not have the proper understanding of this with the new administration.

The previous administration was ill-equipped to deal with any China crisis as well, as much as people want to believe otherwise.

Damon.

Garand -- +1. I find most US residents dont see how far the US has fallen in the Asia Pacific. About a year ago, there was a front page editorial in a major Australian newspaper written by Greg Sheridan -- a right wing thinker loathed by leftists. He was addressing Australia's interactions with China. And he made the statement that 'the USA is no longer a reliable ally'. Damaged relations with Australia, Philippines, Indonesia, India, and South Korea will take a decade to restore. And they are essential to deal with China.

I've heard and read that if you tell lies often enough, some may/will even begin to believe them.

That applies to a number of topics above, both in China and here in the USA.

To make a lie believable; repeat it constantly.

The case is plain. It will be a China vs. USA game and I am very concerned the USA does not have the proper understanding of this with the new administration.

The previous administration was ill-equipped to deal with any China crisis as well, as much as people want to believe otherwise.

I disagree but that is just my opinion … they were much better at dealing with the PRC/CCP. For a number of reasons. There is still an ongoing question about private dealings i.e. of the new admin and relatives with the PRC/CCP, Ukraine, and the Moscow Mayors wife ? IMO and many others that needs to be investigated.

The Chinese model is essentially fascist – basically the government fosters private sector but only within the bounds of achieving national goals.

Very true …

Thresher & USAF +2

Where democratic nations see changes of government and consequent changing of goals and objectives, the totalitarian system does not. Where democratic politicians think in four year cycles, with one eye on re-election, totalitarian regimes can plan their objectives decades, if not centuries, ahead with no concern for transient popularity or popular opinion. That's an inbuilt disadvantage to democracies.

Where many in western democracies see politics as about righting the wrongs of the world, China still considers its international involvement is 19th century terms. Each nation competing in a Darwinian struggle to succeed, recognising that their success will only come about by ensuring the failure of other nations.

Mixed economy and Capitalist economies in democratic nations allow China to purchase, under the term "invest", in their industries, thereby exerting influence across the globe. China allows democracies to buy from its industries but ultimate control is always in the hands of the state.

Frankly, if I were a young person, I'd start learning Mandarin.

As I was told and have said before, "Russia wants to destroy us … the Chinese want to own us." … I'm sticking with that until something makes me believe otherwise.

Ooh, this thread is a hot mess. I'm noping right on out of here…

You tell a lie long enough, people start to believe it.

JMcCarrol +1

At University I did once read an article that stated the CIA determined that by the mid-1970s American corporations no longer took into account what was the best for the USA and often acted against US national interests.

It appears that neither does the government work in its own interests, if the breakup of Big Tech companies like Apple, Amazon and Google are allowed to proceed apace for anti-trust reasons:

link

That is why Congress keeps bring the Big Tech guys to hearings. They have become a propaganda tool for the Left, etc.

It appears that neither does the government work in its own interests, if the breakup of Big Tech companies like Apple, Amazon and Google are allowed to proceed apace for anti-trust reasons:

It is within the US interests to break up Big Tech if the monopolies gain too much power.

Arguably they already have too much power – they can manipulate the whole media system to their favour (they already do).

It's funny how the article talks about Big Tech subscribing to US law. Obviously not US tax law.

Breaking up Big Tech works in the Middle Kingdom's interests, that's the gist of the argument. I would have thought a China critic like yourself would understand that. The reasons enumerated in the Federalist article are quite compelling.

So the answer is to let the Zuckerburg's and Bezos take over by default?

I don't like the PRC but Big Tech is as much a threat to the west.

I don't like the PRC but Big Tech is as much a threat to the west.

Agreed …