The China Debate, On America's Terms
America's greatest exports are ideas, intangible "somethings" that make our country unique. For much of the last twenty years, American politicians have paid lip service to the China problem.
One of the wonderful things about being a Super Power is our ability to re-frame any political, economic, or sociocultural issue at will. The Civil Rights era brought about greater freedoms, greater justice and improved our nation's morale. It was a reminder that yes, as a matter of fact, we do believe all are created equal and yes, we believe in self-determination and social responsibility. We recognized, crafted and then implemented a path towards a better future. Just as Lincoln did through the Emancipation Proclamation, and as our Founding Fathers did with the Declaration of Independence.
Demonstrating man's goodness is at the core of what makes America a wonderful country and concept. It is our recognition of the good in our fellow man, our responsibility to police those who do not achieve those standards, and our willingness to stand for these things on the world's stage that makes us different than any of our allies - with the possible exception of Israel.
For too long, our national discourse has been defeatist about "the rise of China."
What if the politicians are all wrong? What if the solution is the simplest answer? Let us acknowledge we are not going to beat China on the retail side. We will not enslave our population, as China does. We employ strict environmental standards, they do not. We invest in ideas, they reverse engineer them and make cheap reproductions.
A short term economic contraction, which we are already experiencing without the benefit of any visionary leader to guide us, may be necessary. But if we re-frame this debate and look at where we can beat China - on the wholesale side - we win. We innovate. We create. We imagine. We deploy.
Take Africa and Afghanistan, where China's investments assist in funding war crimes and suffering. China exploits fear and slave labor.
If American companies competed, offered living wages and safe passage, workers in Africa and the United States and Malaysia would be grateful and productive. It seems to me the Trillions of dollars of natural resource wealth around the globe would be better utilized if the 21st Century leaders could be half as visionary as those who brought us the Industrial Revolution.
Instead of ceding every mineral, gas, and oil contract to the Chinese, American interests should compete. Let's stop allowing the "conventional wisdom" drive us farther down the uncertain economic path and press for change that would save lives, improve economic forecasts, and force China back to the table.
As an aside, it's an honor to be here this week. Many thanks to everyone.
- Comment (37)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
I am uncertain if I follow your argument. Are you asserting that US companies are for some reason avoiding competition with Chinese firms? or are you stating they compete but in a manner that is detrimental to our national interests?
Jun '10
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Colonialism is ugly, but it works. I suspect colonial ambitions have a lot to do with the Chinese military buildup. It "helps" other nations mind their own business.
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
It's not about Colonialism per se, just about not allowing China to dominate the excavation & utilization of natural resources with impunity.
Feb '11
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Perhaps I'm turning into the grumpy old woman in my avatar, but I fear your rhetoric is not based in reality. Is the US still a Super Power? Ought it to be? Can we really re-frame any issue at will? If that is the case, then why do the Afghans not love us better? Why haven't the Russians fallen in line? Shouldn't the Volt work better because the government is behind it? And perhaps our stern disapproval will cause the nuclear enrichment program of the Iranians to cease.
And do we really want a visionary leader to guide us? It seems we have one already. The problem is that his vision is completely wrong.
I don't believe in man's inherent goodness. I believe that freedom is a necessary condition for man's self-interest to work in a way that betters himself and thus the society around him, but not in man's essential goodness. (see Bill Whittle for further explication)
Your humanistic, rosy-hued vision does not jibe with my beliefs in limited constitutional government.
Edited on April 10, 2012 at 1:53amAug '10
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Sure would be fun to hear Derbyshire wade into this argument.But he has a full plate in front of himself and doesn't need anymore chairs pulled out .He has been one of few China-hands in the past decades with conciseview.Anxious to see his next forum. Get well and we will try to man the ramparts.
May '10
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Is this going to tie in to another 18th century author discussion?
Sorry, I live in a real world where we compete on all things -- ideas as well as products and commodities -- with people and countries all over the world. Different countries, different people, different groups, have different competitive advantages vis a vis the others. You can re-frame or re-vision things all you want, but in the end the invisible hand of the market will still be at work.
Dec '10
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Elizabeth, I am completely with you in your position that the conventional wisdom of the unwisest Thomas L. Friedman is an awful joke. However, I don't see the deep solution in these particulars that you mention. Of course, you are right that we should be competing for every natural resource anywhere and everywhere that we can.
What I think is at the root of our National Defeatism is the most obvious but least talked of. It is the simple issue of Freedom. China is a slave state. We have allowed her to prosper as that. We have even participated in this by borrowing money from her.
We will start on our true course when we are ready to break free of our psychological constraints and once again value real freedom. The Chinese Marxist State will collapse. Freedom will triumph. Gd will sort out the rest.
Until we are ready to accept this nothing will change.
Regards,
Jim
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Perhaps & should be more specific. American companies - not the goverment - should stop enabling China as the President seems to think is the best course. Mama Toad's mention of the Volt is a perfect case. The electric & hybrid industry stinks because of their hyper-focus on going "green." The cobalt in the batteries, not to mention the tin, tantalum, tungsten, copper and gold throughout the circuitry are not only sourceD & mined in China. Much of it comes from Congo where it is mined with slave labor while deforesting the second largest rainforest in the world. The hypocrisy of the "green" movement ought to be the issue. The Volt & other vehicles like it are an elaborate NIMBY decoy that encourages suffering & destroys what they say they want to protect. I believe American entrepreneurs, companies and advocates can develop and implement a century of growth in keeping with our values.
Oct '10
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Ah. . .less corporatism would be beneficial to our country, yes, as would rooting out the fascism that's taken root in our environmental movement. But to be frank, it's not going to be that easy. China has a number of advantages, chief among them the opportunity it's had to design it's entitlement system without the assumption of expanding population growth. That alone gives it a significant advantage.
The Chinese are hard workers; they work hard, study hard, and are becoming increasingly innovative. Our education system, on the other hand, has become insular and useless; people are not educated in America to become productive workers, they're educated according to the whims of an insular and unaccountable educator elite.
Feb '11
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
I mention the Volt because it is an example of governmental leaders attempting to make reality match their vision. I am not as worried about where the rare metals are mined, although I am sure I should be. But the Volt is the result of governmental intervention in the auto industry. "The electric & hybrid industry stinks" because of the government's hyper-focus on going green. The government has its finger on the scale and is distorting the market.
I like hybrid cars -- Papa Toad and I own a Honda Civic hybrid bought in 2003. It's a great car.
The Industrial Revolution was not the result of government programs, but entrepreneurial vision. Governmental getting out of the way is what is necessary for the innovation and deployment you describe to take place.
Dec '10
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Elizabeth,
I am glad to hear that you have completely seen through the "green" lie. As a young instrument salesman some 30 years ago I bumped into some of the most sophisticated peddlers of the "green" lie. A few probing questions was all that was needed to discover that they were selling nothing but lies and like the pied piper were leading us to destruction.
We must, however, recognize that there is something intangible that we posess which is not technical but transcendental. Freedom as the ground of morality is the basis of a moral existence. The Chinese people are yearning for this freedom. There will come a time when this yearning will not be denied. Although there is little that we can do to speed up the process, we must not stand in it's way or be afraid of it when it comes.
We will welcome a billion and half souls into the free world.
Regards,
Jim
Jul '10
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Okay, but an actor for the Chinese is probably confident his investment in Africa will be protected, right? Any private American company looking to compete would need to account for that in some fashion: higher margins, better productivity, lower wages, direct spending on security (mercs and/or bribes), lobbying the U.S. gubmint for backup, etc.
While it seems likely that American companies have a great deal to offer, I have a harder time seeing what they have to gain without some sort of Tattaglia-type promise...
Feb '11
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Going green is not a bad thing. My husband designs homes that are zero-net energy -- through solar panels and geothermal heating/cooling, insulated concrete forms, spray-foam insulation, triple-pane windows, and heat-recovery ventilators, these houses produce more electricity than they use in the course of a year. Really truly. They are not built through government programs. He has also retrofitted conventional buildings to near zero-net energy.
What is the difference? No government program. No mandated energy standards. Just consumers and entrepreneurs getting together to get out a product that both want. Wow. Visionary!
Edited on April 10, 2012 at 3:37amMay '10
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Let us know when the MSM gets on board with that. Until then, good luck getting the word out to the masses that aren't paying attention.
May '11
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Our policy towards China is short sighted. They gain more than us and in fact we gain very little in the long run. Every US company with any international ambition has a presence in China. When China starts its occasional saber rattling, we have to knuckle under to them. This is because our politicians are beholden to our people and our businesses. These businesses cannot survive if we were to stop relations with China. Thus we will do nothing to jeopardize relations.
China, on the other hand, is still a despotic state. If we were to call their bluff a lot of Chinese people and businesses might suffer but the ruling class will not suffer one bit. They can mow down any "students" in Tianamen Square and require the people to sacrifice more and more and they will still be in power. US politicians would be tossed out of office while their Chinese counterparts thrive.
We're married to the mob and we can't get out. China will have their way with us whenever they want to and there's little we can do about it. We should have had a Cuban-like relationship with them instead.
May '10
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
Elizabeth Blackney, Guest Contributor:
If American companies competed, offered living wages and safe passage, workers in Africa and the United States and Malaysia would be grateful and productive. It seems to me the Trillions of dollars of natural resource wealth around the globe would be better utilized if the 21st Century leaders could be half as visionary as those who brought us the Industrial Revolution.
Instead of ceding every mineral, gas, and oil contract to the Chinese, American interests should compete.
That begs the question: Why are American companies not more involved in these poor nations? Why do they need to be persuaded?
Fossil fuels are abundant in eastern Siberia, but few American companies drill there. Why? Because Russian contracts are not as reliable as American contracts, even after bribes have been paid. I suspect tumultuous nations in middle Africa are avoided for similar reasons.
Mar '11
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
You mean like Ipads (that are made in China)?
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
While recognizing contracts have to be negotiated, and American companies want to be reassured their investments are secure, we also must recognize the defeatist tone regarding China is not productive. Informed consumers will not want an iPad, or a hybrid vehicle, if they knew more directly the toll on human life it costs for them to have these items. American companies will build and refurbish manufacturing facilities, no matter what. Instead of looking to the government for solutions - business needs to take the lead. As for folks who have gone "green" - I would refer them to the study released last year that showed (just in Congo) 1152 women & girls, ages 15-49, are brutally raped as away to enslave them to mineral mining. China pays for this. Zero environmental controls. With American troops acting as advisers on the ground in neighboring Uganda, and in Kenya, there are stable - and resource rich - opportunities to invest. There isn't a perfect solution here. But there must be a better, smarter, and more American path forward than throwing up our hands and giving the next century to China. Either we believe in American Exceptionalism or we don't.
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
The study cited was released in May of last year by the American Journal of Public Health, and showed (conservatively) that women and girls between the ages of 15-49 are raped daily in Congo. That works out to about 48 per hour. If we believe that all are created equal, then our consumer dollars and business investments should reflect it to the degree possible.
Mar '11
Re: The China Debate, On America's Terms
A horrific reality to be sure. So if I am understanding this correctly you are advocating a form of "social entrepreneurship" very much akin to the idea of "green" purchases, but organized around different principles. It has the sound of a noble principle but how would that work in practice? Do you simply believe more information in the hands of consumers would be effective here? That seems to be your argument here: