America Fights, China Gets Rich
At least, according to Anne Applebaum in today's Washington Post:
Look at Afghanistan, for example, where American troops have been fighting for nearly a decade, where billions of dollars of American aid money has been spent -- and where a Chinese company has won the rights to exploit one of the world's largest copper deposits. Though American troops don't protect the miners directly, Afghan troops, trained and armed by Americans, do...
America fights, in other words, while China does business, and not only in Afghanistan. In Iraq, where American troops brought down a dictator and are still fighting an insurgency, Chinese oil companies have acquired bigger stakes in the oil business than their American counterparts. In Pakistan, where billions in American military aid helps the government keep the Taliban at bay, China has set up a free-trade area and is investing heavily in energy and ports.
And it gets worse:
China has found it lucrative to stay out of other kinds of conflicts as well. Along with Western Europeans, Americans are pouring vast amounts of public and private money into solar energy and wind power, hoping to wean themselves off fossil fuels and prevent climate change. China, by contrast, builds a new coal-fired plant every 10 days or so. While thus producing ever more greenhouse gases in the East, China makes clever use of those government subsidies in the West: Three Chinese companies now rank among the top 10 producers of wind turbines in the world.
Are we being outsmarted? Sure seems like it.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
The question is, what do we do about it? We were in exactly the same position in the mid-'80's vis-a-vis Japan.
Do we stop fighting and ignore the GWOT? Do we adopt an American version of MITI/Chinese government investment to build facilities and subsidize exports? That is certainly what the Left would propose. Rob, too? And should we take over the oil fields with military might? Might as well trade blood for oil, get something out of it....
I must admit, seeing the Chinese invest a lot in current wind turbine technology is a good thing in my mind. Photovoltaics, after the yield and efficiency have improved substantially, and pebble bed reactors are another matter.
Aug '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
So true. We're acting like hicks who just fell off the turnip truck.
We have to quit being The Knight in Shining Armor, coming to the world's rescue. It's a worn out act that has failed us horribly. Europeans expect us to protect them and shed blood and treasure, but what do we get? Bupkis!. Then at their cocktail parties they despise us for being cowboys.
We're being bled dry and rendered bankrupt fighting for a principle nobody else believes in. If we're not paid handsomely and publicly praised, we should never go to war unless it's clearly and undeniably in our national interest.
May '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
Rob, by excluding companies who aren't based in the a country participating in the war, you fulfill the accusations from lefties that you're conquering and plundering for profit.
So either we have to win the debate that profit as a result of war is not a bad thing, or resign ourselves to a disinterested separation between who fights and who wins contracts.
Edited on Sep 28, 2010 at 1:24pmJun '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
We never said that our war aims were economic and to give the appearance that they were would undermine the objective. The only way that most of the other powers will have any interest in stability in that part of the world (or any other) is if they have an economic stake. Its a balance and we are straining our economic strength to maintain Pax Americana but our economy is still more than twice that of China and they have a three times as many mouths to feed so I wouldn't begrudge them the opportunity to compete for business in countries where we are fighting. As to who is being out smarted, China is holding one trillion U S dollars.
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
It's hard to argue that the problem with US competitiveness is the size of our military budget. We spent more as a percentage of GDP during the 1980s and the economy seemed to do pretty well.
If we abolished the corporate income tax, brought back accelerated depreciation and slashed anti-growth regulations on a comprehensive basis, United States growth would explode. Reagan had it right--government is the problem.
May '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
Mark Wilson:
So either we have to win the debate that profit as a result of war is not a bad thing, or resign ourselves to a disinterested separation between who fights and who wins contracts. · Sep 28 at 1:23pm
I was tempted to say we can use these facts to rebut accusations of war for profit, but truth never convinced liberals before.
I don't object to the Iraqis or Afghans selecting the most profitable companies to harvest their resources, even if it means overlooking an obvious debt to us. That's their choice. What I do object to are the American regulations that are probably behind that difference in profitability.
River:
We have to quit being The Knight in Shining Armor, coming to the world's rescue. It's a worn out act that has failed us horribly.
Sadly, as our economy continues to decline and if our politics continue leftward, the whole world will soon discover what happens when the world's policeman retires without a replacement.
May '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
George Savage: It's hard to argue that the problem with US competitiveness is the size of our military budget. We spent more as a percentage of GDP during the 1980s and the economy seemed to do pretty well.
If we abolished the corporate income tax, brought back accelerated depreciation and slashed anti-growth regulations on a comprehensive basis, United States growth would explode. Reagan had it right--government is the problem. · Sep 28 at 1:41pm
Damn Straight!
May '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
Extending River's argument:If we choose to go to war, we kill people and break things, accept their surrender, then get out. Let them re-build their own nation. And if they re-build it wrong, go back in and break it again until they get the idea.
Mark Wilson makes a good point: for most of the history of mankind the point of war is to plunder your enemy or take his land. Only America has fought wars for the benefit of others. It's very idealistic. But as WFB once said, "Idealism is fine. But as idealism approaches reality the price become prohibitive."
Finally, demographics alone suggests that Chinese companies will out bid American ones often. They've got a surplus of supply of men and equipment. Under those conditions supply and demand will allow them to under bid us.
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
Duane is my candidate for Secretary of State.
Aug '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
George Savage: If we abolished the corporate income tax, brought back accelerated depreciation and slashed anti-growth regulations on a comprehensive basis, United States growth would explode. Reagan had it right--government is the problem. · Sep 28 at 1:41pm
Amen!
Jul '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
Rob Long: according to Anne Applebaum in today's Washington Post:
Are we being outsmarted? Sure seems like it. ·
We insist on sprinting headlong into walls, they start selling track spikes.
If we can't rule out bad economic policies because they're bad, can we at least watch the Chinese and ditch the policies when they start manipulating them?
May '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
I think if we spend blood and treasure to stabilize the country, we should get first past for our companies, regardless if it costs them more.
Why should America be the world's chump?
Sep '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
George Savage:
If we abolished the corporate income tax, brought back accelerated depreciation and slashed anti-growth regulations on a comprehensive basis, United States growth would explode. Reagan had it right--government is the problem. · Sep 28 at 1:41pm
It seems so obvious.
But guess what Russ Feingold is running against in his recent campaign ads? Why, he's against free trade, of course. The sad thing is that its probably a winning political issue in a union-heavy state like Wisconsin.
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
Pilgrim
We never said that our war aims were economic and to give the appearance that they were would undermine the objective. The only way that most of the other powers will have any interest in stability in that part of the world (or any other) is if they have an economic stake. Its a balance and we are straining our economic strength to maintain Pax Americana but our economy is still more than twice that of China and they have a three times as many mouths to feed so I wouldn't begrudge them the opportunity to compete for business in countries where we are fighting. As to who is being out smarted, China is holding one trillion U S dollars. · Sep 28 at 1:33pm
Good point. Well, points. Especially that last one.
May '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
Have you been following the Chinese reaction to fishermen caught poaching in Japanese waters? Although China was totally in the wrong, Japan was forced to surrender.
China will be the Germany of the 21st Century and Taiwan will be the Sudetenland.
The history of the 21st Century will read thus:
While the Chinese prepared for world domination the USA was distracted by some silly men in the Middle East.
May '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
Peter Robinson
Duane is my candidate for Secretary of State. · Sep 28 at 1:58pm
Well, for Peter, note that Stanford is leading in the quest to address the photovoltaics challenge:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/september/nanoscale-solar-cells-092710.html
May '10
Re: America Fights, China Gets Rich
Duane Oyen
Well, for Peter, note that Stanford is leading in the quest to address the photovoltaics challenge:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/september/nanoscale-solar-cells-092710.html · Sep 29 at 9:00am
Haha! I love the analogies they use to convey technical information to the general public. Nanoscale solar cells are "the same as if you were using hamsters running on little wheels to generate your electricity – you'd want each hamster to log as many miles as possible before it jumped off and ran away."